,,production ,,notes3 ,a ,reply to ,dr  
,lightfoot's ,essays by ,walter ,r4     
,cassels 7#d-,sep-#ahbf to              
#aj-;,jun-#aijg7 ,originally published  
anonymously in #ahhi4        ,a ,,reply 
,,to ,,dr ,,lightfoot',s ,,essays  ,,by 
,,the ,,author ,,of ,,supernatural      
,,religion     ,,london #ahhi           
,,introduction4   ,i sincerely rejoice  
that ,dr4 ,lightfoot has recovered from 
his recent illness4 ,of this restoration
 the vigorous energy of his preface to  
his republication of the ,essays on     
,supernatural ,religion affords decided 
evidence1 and ,i hope that no refutation
 of this inference at least may be      
possible1 however little we may agree on
 other points4  ,it was natural that    
,dr4 ,lightfoot should not be averse to 
preserving the more serious part of     
these ,essays1 the preparation of which 
cost him so much time and trouble2 and  
the republication of this portion of his
 reply to my volumes1 giving as it does 
the most eloquent and attractive        

statement of the ecclesiastical case1   
must be welcome to many4 ,i cannot but  
think that it has been an error of      
judgment and of temper1 however1 to have
 rescued from an ephemeral state of     
existence and conferred literary        
permanence on much in his present       
volume1 which is mere personal attack on
 his adversary and a deliberate attempt 
to discredit a writer with whom he      
pretends to enter into serious argument4
 ,a material part of the volume is      
composed of such matter4 ,i cannot      
congratulate him on the spirit which he 
has displayed4 ,personally ,i am        
profoundly indifferent to such attempts 
at detraction1 and it is with heretical 
amusement that ,i contemplate the large 
part which purely individual and        
irrelevant criticism is made to play in 
stuffing out the proportions of orthodox
 argument4 ,in the first moment of      
irritation1 ,i can well understand that 
hard hitting1 even below the belt1 might
 be indulged in against my work by an   

exasperated theologian--for even a      
bishop is a man1--but that such attacks 
should not only be perpetuated1 but     
repeated after years of calm reflection1
 is at once an error and a compliment   
for which ,i was not prepared4 ,anything
 to prevent readers from taking up      
,supernatural ,religion3 any            
misrepresentation to prejudice them     
against its statements4 ,elaborate      
literary abuse against the author is    
substituted for the effective arguments 
against his reasoning which are         
unhappily wanting4 ,in the later        
editions of my work1 ,i removed         
everything that seemed likely to        
irritate or to afford openings for the  
discussion of minor questions1          
irrelevant to the main subject under    
treatment4 ,whilst ,dr4 ,lightfoot in   
many cases points out such alterations1 
he republishes his original attacks and 
demonstrates the disparaging purpose of 
his ,essays by the reiterated           
condemnation of passages which had so   

little to do with the argument that they
 no longer exist in the complete edition
 of ,supernatural ,religion4 ,could     
there be more palpable evidence of the  
frivolous and superficial character of  
his objections8 ,it is not too much to  
say that in no part of these ,essays has
 ,dr4 ,lightfoot at all seriously       
entered upon the fundamental proposition
 of ,supernatural ,religion4 ,he has    
elaborately criticised notes and        
references3 he has discussed dates and  
unimportant details3 but as to the      
question whether there is any evidence  
for miracles and the reality of alleged 
,divine ,revelation1 his volume is an   
absolute blank4 ,bampton ,lecturers and 
distinguished apologetic writers have   
frankly admitted that the ,christian    
argument must be reconstructed4 ,they   
have felt the positions1 formerly       
considered to be impregnable1 crumbling 
away under their feet1 but nothing could
 more forcibly expose the feebleness of 
the apologetic case than this volume of 

,dr ,lightfoot's ,essays4 ,the          
substantial correctness of the main     
conclusions of ,supernatural ,religion  
is rendered all the more apparent by the
 reply to its reasoning4 ,the eagerness 
with which ,dr4 ,lightfoot and others   
rush up all the side issues and turn    
their backs upon the more important     
central proposition is in the highest   
degree remarkable4 ,those who are in    
doubt and who have understood what the  
problem to be solved really is will not 
get any help from his volume4  ,the     
republication of these ,essays1 however1
 has almost forced upon me the necessity
 of likewise republishing the reply ,i  
gave at the time of their appearance4   
,the first ,essay appeared in the       
,fortnightly ,review1 and others        
followed in the preface to the sixth    
edition of ,supernatural ,religion1 and 
in that and the complete edition1 in    
notes to the portions attacked1 where   
reply seemed necessary4 ,i cannot hope  
that readers will refer to these        

scattered arguments1 and this volume is 
published with the view of affording a  
convenient form of reference for those  
interested in the discussion4 ,i add    
brief notes upon those ,essays which did
 not require separate treatment at the  
time1 and such further explanations as  
seem to me desirable for the elucidation
 of my statements4 ,of course1 the full 
discussion of ,dr4 ,lightfoot's         
arguments must still be sought in the   
volumes of ,supernatural ,religion1 but 
,i trust that ,i may have said enough   
here to indicate the nature of his      
allegations and their bearing on my     
argument4  ,i have likewise thought it  
right to add the ,conclusions1 without  
any alteration1 which were written for  
the complete edition1 when1 for the     
first time1 having examined all the     
evidence1 ,i was in a position to wind  
up the case4 ,this is all the more      
necessary as they finally show the      
inadequacy of ,dr4 ,lightfoot's         
treatment4 ,but ,i have still more been 

moved to append these ,conclusions in   
order to put them within easier reach of
 those who only possess the earlier     
editions1 which do not contain them4    
,dr4 ,lightfoot again reproaches me with
 my anonymity4 ,i do not think that ,i  
am open to much rebuke for not having   
the courage of my opinions2 but ,i may  
distinctly say that ,i have always held 
that arguments upon very serious        
subjects should be impersonal1 and      
neither gain weight by the possession of
 a distinguished name nor lose by the   
want of it4 ,i leave the ,bishop any    
advantage he has in his throne1 and ,i  
take my stand upon the basis of reason  
and not of reputation4                  
,,contents      ,i4  ,a ,,reply ,,to    
,,dr4 ,,lightfoot',s ,,first ,,essay    
,,on ,,supernatural ,,religion    ,,ii4 
,,the ,,silence ,,of ,,eusebius--,,the  
,,ignatian ,,epistles   ,,iii4          
,,polycarp ,,of ,,smyrna    ,,iv4       
,,papias ,,of ,,hierapolis     ,v4      
,,melito ,,of ,,sardis--,,claudius      

,,apollinaris--,,polycrates    ,,vi4    
,,the ,,churches ,,of ,,gaul   ,,vii4   
,,tatian',s ,,diatessaron  ,,viii4      
,,conclusions         ,,endnotes        
,,index4      ,i4  ,a ,,reply ,,to ,,dr4
 ,,lightfoot',s ,,first ,,essay ,,on    
,,supernatural ,,religion4 ,endnote #a3a
   ,the function of the critic1 when    
rightly exercised1 is so important1 that
 it is fitting that a reviewer seriously
 examining serious work should receive  
serious and respectful consideration1   
however severe his remarks and however  
unpleasant his strictures4 ,it is       
scarcely possible that a man can so     
fully separate himself from his work as 
to judge fairly either of its effect as 
a whole or its treatment in detail2 and 
in every undertaking of any magnitude it
 is almost certain that flaws and       
mistakes must occur1 which can best be  
detected by those whose perception has  
not been dulled by continuous and       
over-strained application4 ,no honest   
writer1 however much he may wince1 can  

feel otherwise than thankful to anyone  
who points out errors or mistakes which 
can be rectified2 and1 for myself1 ,i   
may say that ,i desire nothing more than
 such frankness1 and the fair refutation
 of any arguments which may be          
fallacious4  ,reluctant as ,i must ever 
be1 therefore1 to depart from the       
attitude of silent attention which ,i   
think should be maintained by writers in
 the face of criticism1 or to interrupt 
the fair reply of an opponent1 the case 
is somewhat different when criticism    
assumes the vicious tone of the ,rev4   
,dr4 ,lightfoot's article upon          
,supernatural ,religion in the ,december
 number of the ,contemporary ,review4   
,whilst delivering severe lectures upon 
want of candour and impartiality1 and   
preaching temperance and moderation1 the
 practice of the preacher1 as sometimes 
happens1 falls very short of his        
precept4 ,the example of moderation     
presented to me by my clerical critic   
does not seem to me very edifying1 his  

impartiality does not appear to be      
beyond reproach1 and in his tone ,i fail
 to recognise any of the ,greek3        
epieikeia which ,mr4 ,matthew ,arnold so
 justly admires4 ,i shall not emulate   
the spirit of that article1 and ,i trust
 that ,i shall not scant the courtesy   
with which ,i desire to treat ,dr4      
,lightfoot1 whose ability ,i admire and 
whose position ,i understand4 ,i should 
not1 indeed1 consider it necessary at   
present to notice his attack at all1 but
 that ,i perceive the attempt to        
prejudice an audience and divert        
attention from the issues of a serious  
argument by general detraction4 ,the    
device is far from new1 and the tactics 
cannot be pronounced original4 ,in      
religious as well as legal controversy1 
the threadbare maxim3 ,a bad case--abuse
 the plaintiff's attorney1 remains in   
force2 and it is surprising how         
effectual the simple practice still is4 
,if it were granted1 for the sake of    
argument1 that each slip in translation1

 each error in detail and each oversight
 in statement1 with which ,canon        
,lightfoot reproaches ,supernatural     
,religion were well founded1 it must be 
evident to any intelligent mind that the
 mass of such a work would not really be
 affected2 such flaws--and what book of 
the kind escapes them--which can most   
easily be removed1 would not weaken the 
central argument1 and after the         
,apologist's ingenuity has been exerted 
to the utmost to blacken every blot1 the
 basis of ,supernatural ,religion would 
not be made one whit more secure4 ,it   
is1 however1 because ,i recognise that1 
behind this skirmishing attack1 there is
 the constant insinuation that          
misstatements have been detected which  
have a vital bearing upon the question  
at issue1 arguments wrecked which are of
 serious importance1 and omissions      
indicated which change the aspect of    
reasoning1 that ,i have thought it worth
 my while at once to reply4 ,i shall    
endeavour briefly to show that1 in thus 

attempting to sap the strength of my    
position1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot has only      
exposed the weakness of his own4 ,dr4   
,lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that
 he has the misfortune to dispute not a 
few propositions which 'most critics'   
are agreed in maintaining4 ,he will     
probably find that most critics1 for    
their part1 will not consider it a very 
great misfortune to differ from a divine
 who has the misfortune of differing on 
so many points1 from most critics4  ,the
 first and most vehement attack made    
upon me by ,dr4 ,lightfoot is regarding 
a highly important passage of ,irenaeus1
 containing a reference to some other   
and unnamed authority1 in which he      
considers that ,i am quite unconscious  
of the distinction between the          
infinitive and indicative2 a point upon 
which any fairly trained schoolboy would
 decide against my reasoning4 ,i had    
found fault with ,tischendorf in the    
text1 and with ,dr4 ,westcott in a note1
 for inserting the words say they1 and  

they taught1 in rendering the oblique   
construction of a passage whose source  
is in dispute1 without some mark or     
explanation1 in the total absence of the
 original1 that these special words were
 supplementary and introduced by the    
translator4 ,i shall speak of           
,tischendorf presently1 and for the     
moment ,i confine myself to ,dr4        
,westcott4 ,irenaeus 7,adv4 ,haer4 v4   
#cf1 #a7 makes a statement as to what   
the presbyters say regarding the joys of
 the ,millennial kingdom1 and he then   
proceeds 7 #b7 with indirect            
construction1 indicating a reference to 
some other authority than himself1 to   
the passage in question1 in which a     
saying similar to ,john xiv4 #b is      
introduced4 ,this passage is claimed by 
,tischendorf as a quotation from the    
work of ,papias1 and is advanced in     
discussing the evidence of the ,bishop  
of ,hierapolis4 ,dr4 ,westcott1 without 
any explanation1 states in his text3 ,in
 addition to the ,gospels of ,st4       

,matthew and ,st4 ,mark1 ,papias appears
 to have been acquainted with the       
,gospel of ,st4 ,john2 #d3a and in a    
note on an earlier page3 ,the passage   
quoted by ,irenaeus from 'the ,elders'  
may probably be taken as a specimen of  
his style of interpretation2 #d3b and   
then follows the passage in which the   
indirect construction receives a        
specific direction by the insertion of  
they taught4 #d3c ,neither ,dr4         
,westcott nor ,dr4 ,lightfoot makes the 
slightest allusion to the fact that they
 are almost alone in advancing this     
testimony1 which ,dr4 ,lightfoot        
describes as having a vital bearing on  
the main question at issue1 the date of 
the fourth ,gospel4 ,the reader who had 
not the work of ,irenaeus before him to 
estimate the justness of the ascription 
of this passage to ,papias1 and who was 
not acquainted with all the             
circumstances1 and with the state of    
critical opinion on the point1 could    
scarcely1 on reading such statements1   

understand the real position of the     
case4  ,now the facts are as follows3   
,routh #d3d conjectured that the whole  
passage in ,irenaeus was derived from   
the work of ,papias1 and in this he was 
followed by ,dorner1 #d3e who           
practically introduced the suggestion to
 the critics of ,germany1 with whom it  
found no favour1 and no one whom ,i     
remember1 except ,tischendorf and       
perhaps ,professor ,hofstede de ,groot1 
now seriously supports this view4       
,zeller1 #e3a in his celebrated treatise
 on the external testimony for the      
fourth ,gospel1 argued against ,dorner  
that1 in spite of the indirect          
construction of the passage1 there is   
not the slightest certainty that        
,irenaeus did not himself interpolate   
the words from the fourth ,gospel1 and  
he affirmed the fact that there is no   
evidence whatever that ,papias knew that
 work4 ,anger1 #e3b discussing the      
evidence of the presbyters quoted by    
,irenaeus in our ,gospels1 refers to    

this passage in a note with marked      
doubt1 saying1 that fortasse 7in        
italics71 on account the chiliastic tone
 of the passage1 it may1 as ,routh      
conjectures1 be from the work of        
,papias2 but in the text he points out  
the great caution with which these      
quotations from the presbyters should be
 used4 ,he says1 ,sed in usu horum      
testimoniorum faciendo cautissime       
versandum est1 tum quod1 nisi omnia1    
certe pleraque ab ,irenaeo memoriter    
repetuntur1 tum quia hic illic          
incertissimum est1 utrum ipse loquatur  
,irenaeus an presbyterorum verba        
recitet4 ,meyer1 #e3c who refers to the 
passage1 remarks that it is doubtful    
whether these presbyters1 whom he does  
not connect with ,papias1 derived the   
saying from the ,gospel or from         
tradition4 ,riggenbach #e3d alludes to  
it merely to abandon the passage as     
evidence connected with ,papias1 and    
only claims the quotation1 in an        
arbitrary way1 as emanating from the    

first half of the second century4       
,professor ,hofstede de ,groot1 #e3e the
 translator of ,tischendorf's work into 
,dutch1 and his warm admirer1 brings    
forward the quotation1 after him1 as    
either belonging to the circle of       
,papias or to that ,father himself4     
,hilgenfeld #e3f distinctly separates   
the presbyters of this passage from     
,papias1 and asserts that they may have 
lived in the second half of the second  
century4 ,luthardt1 #f3a in the new     
issue of his youthful work on the fourth
 ,gospel1 does not attempt to associate 
the quotation with the book of ,papias1 
but merely argues that the presbyters to
 whom ,irenaeus was indebted for it     
formed a circle to which ,polycarp and  
,papias belonged4 ,zahn #f3b does not go
 beyond him in this4 ,dr4 ,davidson1    
while arguing that it is impossible to  
show that the four 7,gospels7 were      
current as early as ,a4,d4 #aej1 refers 
to this passage1 and says3 ,it is       
precarious to infer with ,tischendorf   

either that ,irenaeus derived his       
account of the presbyters from ,papias's
 book1 or that the authority of the     
elders carries us back to the           
termination of the apostolic times2 and 
he concludes3 ,is it not evident that   
,irenaeus employed it 7the word         
'elders'7 loosely1 without an exact idea
 of the persons he meant8 #f3c ,in      
another place ,dr4 ,davidson still more 
directly says3 ,the second proof is     
founded on a passage in ,irenaeus where 
the ,father1 professing to give an      
account of the eschatological tradition 
of 'the presbyter1 a disciple of the    
,apostles1' introduces the words1 'and  
that therefore the ,lord said1 ,in my   
,father's house are many mansions4'     
,here it is equally uncertain whether a 
work of ,papias be meant as the source  
of the quotation1 and whether that      
,father did not insert something of his 
own1 or something borrowed elsewhere1   
and altered according to the text of the
 ,gospel4 #f3d  ,with these exceptions1 

no critic seems to have considered it   
worth his while to refer to this passage
 at all4 ,neither in considering the    
external evidences for the antiquity of 
the fourth ,gospel1 nor in discussing   
the question whether ,papias was        
acquainted with it1 do apologetic       
writers like ,bleek1 ,ebrard1           
,olshausen1 ,guericke1 ,kirchhofer1     
,thiersch1 or ,tholuck1 or impartial    
writers like ,credner1 ,de ,wette1      
,gfrrer1 ,lcke1 and others commit the   
mistake of even alluding to it1 although
 many of them directly endeavour to     
refute the article of ,zeller1 in which 
it is cited and rejected1 and all of    
them point out so indirect an argument  
for his knowledge of the ,gospel as the 
statement of ,eusebius that ,papias made
 use of the first ,epistle of ,john4    
,indeed1 on neither side is the passage 
introduced into the controversy at all2 
and whilst so many conclude positively  
that ,papias was not acquainted with the
 fourth ,gospel1 the utmost that is     

argued by the majority of apologetic    
critics is1 that his ignorance of it is 
not actually proved4 ,those who go      
further and urge the supposed use of the
 ,epistle as testimony in favour of his 
also knowing the ,gospel would only too 
gladly have produced this passage1 if   
they could have maintained it as taken  
from the work of ,papias4 ,it would not 
be permissible to assume that any of the
 writers to whom we refer were ignorant 
of the existence of the passage1 because
 they are men thoroughly acquainted with
 the subject generally1 and most of them
 directly refer to the article of       
,zeller in which the quotation is       
discussed4  ,this is an instance in     
which ,dr4 ,lightfoot has the misfortune
 to dispute not a few propositions1     
which most critics are agreed in        
maintaining4 ,i have no objection to his
 disputing anything4 ,all that ,i       
suggest desirable in such a case is some
 indication that there is anything in   
dispute1 which1 ,i submit1 general      

readers could scarcely discover from the
 statements of ,dr4 ,westcott or the    
remarks of ,dr4 ,lightfoot4 ,now in     
regard to myself1 in desiring to avoid  
what ,i objected to in others1 ,i may   
have gone to the other extreme4 ,but    
although ,i perhaps too carefully       
avoided any indication as to who says   
that there is this distinction of       
dwelling1 c41 ,i did what was possible  
to attract attention to the actual      
indirect construction1 a fact which must
 have been patent1 as ,dr4 ,lightfoot   
says1 to a fairly trained schoolboy4 ,i 
doubly indicated1 by a mark and by      
adding a note1 the commencement of the  
sentence1 and not only gave the original
 below1 but actually inserted in the    
text the opening words1 ,greek3 einai de
 tn diastoln tautn ts oikses1 for the   
express purpose of showing the          
construction4 ,that ,i did not myself   
mistake the point is evident1 not only  
from this1 but from the fact that ,i do 
not make any objection to the           

translations of ,tischendorf and ,dr4   
,westcott1 beyond condemning the        
unmarked introduction of precise words1 
and that ,i proceed to argue that the   
presbyters1 to whom the passage is      
referred1 are in no case necessarily to 
be associated with the work of ,papias1 
which would have been mere waste of time
 had ,i intended to maintain that       
,irenaeus quoted direct from the        
,gospel4 ,an observation made to me     
regarding my note on ,dr4 ,westcott1    
showed me that ,i had been              
misunderstood1 and led me to refer to   
the place again4 ,i immediately withdrew
 the note which had been interpreted in 
a way very different from what ,i had   
intended1 and at the same time          
perceiving that my argument was obscure 
and liable to the misinterpretation of  
which ,dr4 ,lightfoot has made such     
eager use1 ,i myself at once recast it  
as well as ,i could within the limits at
 my command1 #h3a and this was already  
published before ,dr4 ,lightfoot's      

criticism appeared1 and before ,i had   
any knowledge of his articles4 #h3b     
,with regard to ,tischendorf1 however1  
the validity of my objection is         
practically admitted in the fullest way 
by ,dr4 ,lightfoot himself4             
,tischendorf's words1 he says1 are 'und 
deshalb1 sagen sie1 habe der ,herr den  
,ausspruch gethan4' ,he might have      
spared the 'sagen sie1' because the     
,german idiom 'habe' enables him to     
express the main fact that the words    
were not ,irenaeus's own without this   
addition4 ,writing of a brother         
apologist of course he apologetically   
adds3 ,but he has not altered any idea  
which the original contains4 #i3a ,i    
affirm1 on the contrary1 that he has    
very materially altered an idea--that1  
in fact1 he has warped the whole        
argument1 for ,dr4 ,lightfoot has       
mercifully omitted to point out that the
 words just quoted are introduced by the
 distinct assertion that ,irenaeus      
quotes even out of the mouth of the     

presbyters1 those high authorities of   
,papias4 ,the ,german apologist1        
therefore1 not giving the original text1
 not saying a word of the adverse       
judgment of most critics1 after fully   
rendering the construction of ,irenaeus 
by the habe1 quietly inserts say they1  
in reference to these high authorities  
of ,papias1 without a hint that these   
words are his own4 #i3b  ,my argument   
briefly is1 that there is no ground for 
asserting that the passage in question1 
with its reference to many mansions1 was
 derived from the presbyters of ,papias1
 or from his book1 and that it is not a 
quotation from a work which quotes the  
presbyters as quoting these words1 but  
one made more directly by ,irenaeus--not
 directly from the ,gospel1 but probably
 from some contemporary1 and            
representing nothing more than the      
exegesis of his own day4  ,the second   
point of ,canon ,lightfoot's attack is  
in connection with a discussion of the  
date of ,celsus4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot quotes 

a passage from ,origen given in my work1
 #aj3a upon which he comments as        
follows3 ,on the strength of the passage
 so translated1 our author supposes that
 ,origen's impression concerning the    
date of ,celsus had meanwhile been      
'considerably modified1' and remarks    
that he now 'treats him as a            
contemporary4' ,unfortunately1 however1 
the tenses1 on which everything depends1
 are freely handled in this translation4
 ,origen does not say ',celsus has      
promised1' but ',celsus promises        
7,greek3 epangellomenon7--i4e41 in the  
treatise before him1 ,origen's knowledge
 was plainly derived from the book      
itself4 ,and1 again1 he does not say    
',if he has not fulfilled his promise to
 write1' but ',if he did not write as he
 undertook to do' 7,greek3 egrapsen     
huposchomenos72 nor ',if he has         
commenced and finished1' but ',if he    
commenced and finished' 7,greek3        
arxamenos sunetelese74 ,thus ,origen's  
language itself here points to a past   

epoch1 and is in strict accordance with 
the earlier passages in his work4 #aj3b 
,these remarks1 and the triumphant      
exclamation of ,dr4 ,lightfoot at the   
close that here an elaborate argument is
 wrecked on this rock of grammar1 convey
 a totally wrong impression of the case4
  ,the argument regarding this passage  
in ,origen occurs in a controversy      
between ,tischendorf and ,volkmar1 the  
particulars of which ,i report2 #aj3c   
and to avoid anticipation of the point1 
,i promise to give the passage in its   
place1 which ,i subsequently do4 ,all   
the complimentary observations which    
,dr4 ,lightfoot makes upon the          
translation actually fall upon the head 
of his brother apologist1 ,tischendorf1 
whose rendering1 as he so much insists  
upon it1 ,i merely reproduce4 ,the      
manner in which ,tischendorf attacks    
,volkmar in connection with this passage
 forcibly reminds me of the amenities   
addressed to myself by ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 
who seems unconsciously to have caught  

the trick of his precursor's scolding4  
,volkmar had paraphrased ,origen's words
 in a way of which his critic           
disapproved1 and ,tischendorf comments  
as follows3 ,but here again we have to  
do with nothing else than a completely  
abortive fabrication1 a certificate of  
our said critic's poverty4 ,for the     
assertion derived from the close of the 
work of ,origen rests upon gross        
ignorance or upon intentional deception4
 ,the words of ,origen to his patron    
,ambrosius1 who had prompted him to the 
composition of the whole apology1 run as
 follows and here ,i must give the      
,german3 ',wenn dass ,celsus versprochen
 hat' has promised 'jedenfalls in seinem
 gegen das ,christenthum gerichteten und
 von ,origenes widerlegten ,buche7 noch 
eine andere ,schrift nach dieser zu     
verfassen1 worin u4s4w4' ',wenn er nun  
diese zweite ,schrift trotz seines      
,versprechens nicht geschrieben hat' has
 not written1 'so gengt es uns mit      
diesen acht ,bchern auf seine ,schrift  

geantwortet zu haben4 ,wenn er aber auch
 jene unternommen und vollendet hat' has
 undertaken and completed1 'so treib das
 ,buch auf und schicke es1 damit wir    
auch darauf antworten1' c4 #aa3a ,now   
this translation of ,tischendorf is not 
made carelessly1 but deliberately1 for  
the express purpose of showing the      
actual words of ,origen1 and correcting 
the version of ,volkmar2 and he insists 
upon these tenses not only by referring 
to the ,greek of these special phrases1 
but by again contrasting with them the  
paraphrase of ,volkmar4 #aa3b ,whatever 
disregard of tenses and free handling of
 ,origen there may be here1 therefore1  
are due to ,tischendorf1 who may be     
considered as good a scholar as ,dr4    
,lightfoot1 and not a less zealous      
apologist4  ,instead of depending on the
 strength of the passage so translated1 
however1 as ,canon ,lightfoot           
represents1 my argument is independent  
of this or any other version of         
,origen's words2 and1 in fact1 the point

 is only incidentally introduced1 and   
more as the view of others than my own4 
,i point out #ab3a that ,origen         
evidently knows nothing of his          
adversary3 and ,i add that it is almost 
impossible to avoid the conviction that1
 during the time he was composing his   
work1 his impressions concerning the    
date and identity of his opponent became
 considerably modified4 ,i then proceed 
to enumerate some of the reasons4 ,in   
the earlier portion of his first book   
7i4 #h71 ,origen has heard that his     
,celsus is the ,epicurean of the reign  
of ,hadrian and later1 but a little     
further on 7i4 #fh71 he confesses his   
ignorance as to whether he is the same  
,celsus who wrote against magic1 which  
,celsus the ,epicurean actually did4 ,in
 the fourth book 7iv4 #cf7 he expresses 
uncertainty as to whether the ,epicurean
 ,celsus had composed the work against  
,christians which he is refuting1 and at
 the close of his treatise he treats him
 as a contemporary1 for1 as ,i again    

mention1 ,volkmar and others assert1 on 
the strength of the passage in the      
eighth book and from other              
considerations1 that ,celsus really was 
a contemporary of ,origen4 ,i proceed to
 argue that1 even if ,celsus were the   
,epicurean friend of ,lucian1 there     
could be no ground for assigning to him 
an early date2 but1 on the contrary1    
that so far from being an ,epicurean1   
the ,celsus attacked by ,origen         
evidently was a ,neo-,platonist4 ,this1 
and the circumstance that his work      
indicates a period of persecution       
against ,christians1 leads to the       
conclusion1 ,i point out1 that he must  
be dated about the beginning of the     
third century4 ,my argument1 in short1  
scarcely turns upon the passage in      
,origen at all1 and that which renders  
it incapable of being wrecked is the    
fact that ,celsus never mentions the    
,gospels1 and much less adds anything to
 our knowledge of their authors1 which  
can entitle them to greater credit as   

witnesses for the reality of ,divine    
,revelation4  ,i do not intend to bandy 
many words with ,canon ,lightfoot       
regarding translations4 ,nothing is so  
easy as to find fault with the rendering
 of passages from another language1 or  
to point out variations in tenses and   
expressions1 not in themselves of the   
slightest importance to the main issue1 
in freely transferring the spirit of    
sentences from their natural context to 
an isolated position in quotation4 ,such
 a personal matter as ,dr4 ,lightfoot's 
general strictures1 in this respect1 ,i 
feel cannot interest the readers of this
 ,review4 ,i am quite ready to accept   
correction even from an opponent where  
,i am wrong1 but ,i am quite content to 
leave to the judgment of all who will   
examine them in a fair spirit the       
voluminous quotations in my work4 ,the  
'higher criticism1' in which ,dr4       
,lightfoot seems to have indulged in    
this article1 scarcely rises above the  
correction of an exercise or the        

conjugation of a verb4 #ac3a  ,i am     
extremely obliged to ,dr4 ,lightfoot for
 pointing out two clerical errors which 
had escaped me1 but which have been     
discovered and magnified by his         
microscopic criticism1 and thrown at my 
head by his apologetic zeal4 ,the first 
is in reference to what he describes as 
a highly important question of ,biblical
 criticism4 ,in speaking1 en passant1 of
 a passage in ,john v4 #c1 #d1 in       
connection with the ,age of ,miracles1  
the words it is argued that were        
accidentally omitted from vol4 i4 p4    
#aac1 line #ai1 and the sentence should 
read1 and it is argued that it was      
probably a later interpolation4 #ad3a   
,in vol4 ii4 p4 #dbj1 after again       
mentioning the rejection of the passage1
 ,i proceed to state my own personal    
belief that the words must have         
,originally stood in the text1 because  
v4 #g indicates the existence of such a 
context4 ,the second error is in vol4   
ii4 p4 #dbc1 line #bd1 in which only has

 been substituted for never in          
deciphering my ,,ms4 ,since this is such
 a common-place of apologists1 as ,dr4  
,lightfoot points out1 surely he might  
have put a courteous construction upon  
the error1 instead of venting upon me so
 much righteous indignation4 ,i can     
assure him that ,i do not in the        
slightest degree grudge him the full    
benefit of the argument that the fourth 
,gospel never once distinguishes ,john  
the ,baptist from the ,apostle ,john by 
the addition ,greek3 ho ,baptists4 #ae3a
  ,i turn1 however1 to a more important 
matter4 ,canon ,lightfoot attacks me in 
no measured terms for a criticism upon  
,dr4 ,westcott's mode of dealing with a 
piece of information regarding          
,basilides4 ,he says--      ,dr4        
,westcott writes of ,basilides as       
follows3--      ',at the same time he   
appealed to the authority of ,glaucias1 
who1     as well as ,st4 ,mark1 was an  
interpreter of ,st4 ,peter4' 7',canon1' 
p4 #bfd7      ,the inverted commas are  

given here as they appear in ,dr4       
,westcott's     book4 ,it need hardly be
 said that ,dr4 ,westcott is simply     
illustrating     the statement of       
,basilides that ,glaucias was an        
interpreter of     ,st4 ,peter by the   
similar statement of ,papias and others 
that ,st4 ,mark     was an interpreter  
of the same apostle--a very innocent    
piece of     information1 one would     
suppose4 ,on this passage1 however1 our 
author     remarks--      ',now we have 
here again an illustration of the same  
misleading     system which we have     
already condemned1 and shall further    
refer to1     in the introduction after 
,glaucias of the words who1 as well as  
,st4 ,mark1 was an interpreter of ,st4  
,peter4 ,the words in italics     are   
the gratuitous addition of ,canon       
,westcott himself1 and can only     have
 been inserted for one of two           
purposes--7#a7 to assert the fact       
that ,glaucias was actually an          
interpreter of ,peter1 as tradition     

represented ,mark to be2 or 7#b7 to     
insinuate to unlearned readers     that 
,basilides himself acknowledged ,mark as
 well as ,glaucias as the               
interpreter of ,peter4 ,we can hardly   
suppose the first to have been     the  
intention1 and we regret to be forced   
back upon the second1 and     infer that
 the temptation to weaken the inferences
 from the appeal     of ,basilides to   
the uncanonical ,glaucias1 by coupling  
with it the     allusion to ,mark1 was1 
unconsciously1 no doubt1 too strong for 
the     apologist4' 7',s4,r4' i4 p4     
#dei7      ,dr4 ,westcott's honour may  
safely be left to take care of itself4  
,it stands far too high to be touched by
 insinuations like these4     ,i only   
call attention to the fact that our     
author has removed     ,dr4 ,westcott's 
inverted commas1 and then founded on the
 passage     so manipulated a charge of 
unfair dealing1 which could only be     
sustained in their absence1 and which   
even then no one but himself     would  

have thought of4 #af3a  ,in order to    
make this matter clear1 ,i must venture 
more fully to quote ,dr4 ,westcott's    
statements regarding ,basilides4 ,dr4   
,westcott says3 ,since ,basilides lived 
on the verge of the ,apostolic times1 it
 is not surprising that he made use of  
other sources of ,christian doctrine    
besides the canonical books4 ,the belief
 in ,divine ,inspiration was still fresh
 and real2 and ,eusebius relates that he
 set up imaginary prophets1 ,barcabbas  
and ,barcoph 7,parchor7--'names to      
strike terror into the                  
superstitious'--by whose writings he    
supported his peculiar views4 ,at the   
same time he appealed to the authority  
of ,glaucias1 who1 as well as ,st4      
,mark1 was 'an interpreter of ,st4      
,peter2' #af3b and he also made use of  
certain ',traditions of ,matthias1'     
which claimed to be grounded on 'private
 intercourse with the ,saviour4' #af3c  
,it appears1 moreover1 that he himself  
published a gospel--a ',life of         

,christ1' as it would perhaps be called 
in our days1 or ',the ,philosophy of    
,christianity'--but he admitted the     
historic truth of all the facts         
contained in the canonical gospels1 and 
used them as ,scripture4 ,for1 in spite 
of his peculiar opinions1 the testimony 
of ,basilides to our 'acknowledged'     
books is comprehensive and clear4 ,in   
the few pages of his writings which     
remain1 there are certain references to 
the ,gospels of ,st4 ,matthew1 ,st4     
,luke1 and ,st4 ,john1 c4 ,and in a note
 ,dr4 ,westcott adds1 ,the following    
examples will be sufficient to show his 
mode of quotation1 c4 #ag3a  ,not a word
 of qualification or doubt is added to  
these extraordinary statements1 for a   
full criticism of which ,i must beg the 
reader to be good enough to refer to    
,supernatural ,religion1 ii4 pp4 #da-ed4
 ,setting aside here the important      
question as to what the gospel of       
,basilides--to which ,dr4 ,westcott     
gives the fanciful names of a ,life of  

,christ1 or ,philosophy of              
,christianity1 without a shadow of      
evidence--really was1 it could scarcely 
be divined1 for instance1 that the      
statement that ,basilides admitted the  
historic truth of all the facts         
contained in the canonical gospels rests
 solely upon a sentence in the work     
attributed to ,hippolytus1 to the effect
 that1 after his generation1 all things 
regarding the ,saviour--according to the
 followers of ,basilides--occurred in   
the same way as they are written in the 
,gospels4 ,again1 it could scarcely be  
supposed by an ordinary reader that the 
assertion that ,basilides used the      
canonical gospels--there certainly were 
no canonical gospels in his day--as     
,scripture1 that his testimony to our   
'acknowledged' books is comprehensive   
and clear1 and that in the few pages of 
his writings which remain there are     
certain references to those gospels1    
which show his method of quotation1 is  
not based upon any direct extracts from 

his writings1 but solely upon passages  
in an epitome by ,hippolytus of the     
views of the school of ,basilides1 not  
ascribed directly to ,basilides himself1
 but introduced by a mere indefinite    
,greek3 phsi4 #ag3b ,why1 ,i might      
enquire in the vein of ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 
is not a syllable said of all this1 or  
of the fact1 which completes the        
separation of these passages from       
,basilides1 that the ,gnosticism        
described by ,hippolytus is not that of 
,basilides1 but clearly of a later type2
 and that writers of that period1 and   
notably ,hippolytus himself1 were in the
 habit of putting1 as it might seem1 by 
the use of an indefinite he says1       
sentiments into the mouth of the founder
 of a sect which were only expressed by 
his later followers8 ,as ,dr4 ,lightfoot
 evidently highly values the testimony  
of ,luthardt1 ,i will quote the words of
 that staunch apologist to show that1 in
 this1 ,i do not merely represent the   
views of a heterodox school4 ,in        

discussing the supposed quotations from 
the fourth ,gospel1 which ,dr4 ,westcott
 represents as certain references to it 
by ,basilides himself1 ,luthardt says3  
,but to this is opposed the             
consideration that1 as we know from     
,irenaeus1 c41 the original system of   
,basilides had a dualistic character1   
whilst that of the ',philosophumena' is 
pantheistic4 ,we must recognise that    
,hippolytus1 in the ',philosophumena1'  
not unfrequently makes the founder of a 
sect responsible for that which in the  
first place concerns his disciples1 so  
that from these quotations only the use 
of the ,johannine ,gospel in the school 
of ,basilides is undoubtedly proved1 but
 not on the part of the founder himself4
 #ah3a  ,it is difficult to recognise in
 this fancy portrait the ,basilides     
regarding whom a large body of eminent  
critics conclude that he did not know   
our ,gospels at all1 but made use of an 
uncanonical work1 supplemented by       
traditions from ,glaucias and ,matthias2

 but1 as if the heretic had not been    
sufficiently restored to the odour of   
sanctity1 the additional touch is given 
in the passage more immediately before  
us4 ,dr4 ,westcott conveys the          
information contained in the single     
sentence of ,clement of ,alexandria1    
,greek3 kathaper ho ,basileids kan      
,glaukian epigraphtai didaskalon1 hs    
auchousin autoi1 ton ,petrou hermnea1   
#ai3a in the following words2 and ,i    
quote the statement exactly as it has   
stood in my text from the very first1 in
 order to show the inverted commas upon 
which ,dr4 ,lightfoot lays so much      
stress as having been removed4 ,in      
mentioning this fact ,canon ,westcott   
says3 ,at the same time he appealed to  
the authority of ,glaucias1 who1 as well
 as ,st4 ,mark1 was 'an interpreter of  
,st4 ,peter4' #ai3b ,now we have here1  
again1 an illustration1 c42 and then    
follows the passage quoted by ,dr4      
,lightfoot4 ,the positive form given to 
the words of ,clement1 and the          

introduction of the words as well as    
,st4 ,mark1 seem at once to impart a    
full flavour of orthodoxy to ,basilides 
which ,i do not find in the original4 ,i
 confess that ,i fail to see any special
 virtue in the inverted commas2 but as  
,dr4 ,lightfoot does1 let me point out  
to him that he commences his            
quotation--upon the strength of which he
 accuses me of manipulating a passage1  
and then founding upon it a charge of   
unfair dealing--immediately after the   
direct citation from ,dr4 ,westcott's   
work1 in which those inverted commas are
 given4 ,the words they mark are a      
quotation from ,clement1 and in my      
re-quotation a few lines lower down they
 are equally well indicated by being the
 only words not put in italics4 ,the    
fact is1 that ,dr4 ,lightfoot has       
mistaken and misstated the whole case4  
,he has been so eagerly looking for the 
mote in my eye that he has failed to    
perceive the beam which is in his own   
eye4 ,it is by this wonderful           

illustration that he exemplifies the    
elaborate looseness which pervades the  
critical portion of this 7my7 book4     
#ai3c ,it rather exemplifies the        
uncritical looseness which pervades his 
own article4  ,dr4 ,lightfoot says1 and 
says rightly1 that ,dr4 ,westcott's     
honour may safely be left to take care  
of itself4 ,it would have been much     
better to have left it to take care of  
itself1 indeed1 than trouble it by such 
advocacy4 ,if anything could check just 
or generous expression1 it would be the 
tone adopted by ,dr4 ,lightfoot2 but    
nevertheless ,i again say1 in the most  
unreserved manner1 that neither in this 
instance nor in any other have ,i had   
the most distant intention of           
attributing corrupt motives to a man    
like ,dr4 ,westcott1 whose              
single-mindedness ,i recognise1 and for 
whose earnest character ,i feel genuine 
respect4 ,the utmost that ,i have at any
 time intended to point out is that1    
utterly possessed as he is by orthodox  

views in general1 and of the canon in   
particular1 he sees facts1 ,i consider1 
through a dogmatic medium1 and          
unconsciously imparts his own peculiar  
colouring to statements which should be 
more impartially made4  ,dr4 ,lightfoot 
will not even give me credit for fairly 
stating the arguments of my adversaries4
 ,the author1 he says1 does indeed      
single out from time to time the weaker 
arguments of 'apologetic' writers1 and  
on these he dwells at great length2 but 
their weightier facts and lines of      
reasoning are altogether ignored by him1
 though they often occur in the same    
books1 and even in the same contexts    
which he quotes4 #bj3a ,i am exceedingly
 indebted to ,dr4 ,lightfoot for having 
had compassion upon my incapacity to    
distinguish these arguments1 and for    
giving me samples of the weightier facts
 and lines of reasoning of apologists   
which ,i have ignored4  ,the first of   
these with which he favours me is in    
connection with an anachronism in the   

epistle ascribed to ,polycarp1 ,ignatius
 being spoken of in chapter thirteen as 
living1 and information requested       
regarding him and those who are with    
him2 whereas in an earlier passage he is
 represented as dead4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot   
reproaches me3-- ,why1 then1 does he not
 notice the answer which he might have  
found in any common source of           
information1 that when the ,latin       
version 7the ,greek is wanting here7 'de
 his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated  
into the original language1 ,greek3 tois
 sun aut1 the 'anachronism' altogether  
disappears8 #ba3a ,as ,dr4 ,lightfoot   
does not apparently attach much weight  
to my replies1 ,i venture to give my    
reasons for not troubling my readers    
with this argument in words which1 ,i   
hope1 may find more favour with him4    
,dr4 ,donaldson1 in his able work on    
,christian ,literature and ,doctrine1   
says3 ,in the ninth chapter ,ignatius is
 spoken of as a martyr1 an example to   
the ,philippians of patience 444 ,in the

 thirteenth chapter ,polycarp requests  
information with regard to ',ignatius   
and those with him4' ,these words occur 
only in the ,latin translation of the   
epistle4 ,to get rid of the difficulty  
which they present1 it has been supposed
 that the words 'de his qui cum eo sunt'
 are a wrong rendering of the ,greek    
,greek3 peri ton met' autou4 ,and then  
the words are supposed to mean1         
'concerning ,ignatius 7of whose death ,i
 heard1 but of which ,i wish            
particulars7 and those who were with    
him4' ,but even the ,greek could not be 
forced into such a meaning as this2 and1
 moreover1 there is no reason to impugn 
the ,latin translation1 except the      
peculiar difficulty presented by a      
comparison with the ninth chapter4 #ba3b
 ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 however1 does impugn  
it4 ,it is apparently his habit to      
impugn translations4 ,he accuses the    
ancient ,latin translator of freely     
handling the tenses of a ,greek text    
which the critic himself has never seen4

 ,here it is ,dr4 ,lightfoot's argument 
which is wrecked upon this rock of      
grammar4  ,the next example of the      
weightier facts and lines of reasoning  
of apologists which ,i have ignored is  
as follows3--      ,again1 when he      
devotes more than forty pages to the    
discussion     of ,papias1 why does he  
not even mention the view maintained by 
,dr4 ,westcott and others 7and certainly
 suggested by a strict                  
interpretation of ,papias' own words71  
that this father's object1 in     his   
',exposition1' was not to construct a   
new evangelical narrative1     but to   
interpret and to illustrate by oral     
tradition one already     lying before  
him in written documents8 ,this view1 if
 correct1     entirely alters the       
relation of ,papias to the written      
,gospels2 and     its discussion was a  
matter of essential importance to the   
main     question at issue4 #bb3a  ,i   
reply that the object of my work was not
 to discuss views advanced without a    

shadow of evidence1 contradicted by the 
words of ,papias himself1 and absolutely
 incapable of proof4 ,my object was the 
much more practical and direct one of   
ascertaining whether ,papias affords any
 evidence with regard to our ,gospels   
which could warrant our believing in the
 occurrence of miraculous events for    
which they are the principal testimony4 
,even if it could be proved1 which it   
cannot be1 that ,papias actually had    
written documents before him1 the cause 
of our ,gospels would not be one jot    
advanced1 inasmuch as it could not be   
shown that these documents were our     
,gospels2 and the avowed preference of  
,papias for tradition over books1 so    
clearly expressed1 implies anything but 
respect for any written documents with  
which he was acquainted4 ,however       
important such a discussion may appear  
to ,dr4 ,lightfoot in the absence of    
other evidence1 it is absolutely devoid 
of value in an enquiry into the reality 
of ,divine ,revelation4  ,the next      

sample of these ignored weightier facts 
and lines of reasoning given by ,dr4    
,lightfoot is the following3            
,again1 when he reproduces the ,tbingen 
fallacy respecting 'the     strong      
prejudice' of ,hegesippus against ,st4  
,paul1 and quotes the     often-quoted  
passage from ,stephanus ,gobarus1 in    
which this writer     refers to the     
language of ,hegesippus condemning the  
use of the     words1 ',eye hath not    
seen1' c41 why does he not state that   
these     words were employed by        
heretical teachers to justify their     
rites of     initiation1 and            
consequently 'apologetic' writers       
contend that     ,hegesippus refers to  
the words1 not as used by ,st4 ,paul1   
but as     misapplied by these heretics8
 ,since1 according to the ,tbingen      
interpretation1 this single notice      
contradicts everything else which     we
 now of the opinions of ,hegesippus1 the
 view of 'apologists'     might1        
perhaps1 have been worth a moment's     

consideration4 #bc3a  ,i reply1 why does
 this punctilious objector omit to point
 out that ,i merely mention the         
anti-,pauline interpretation            
incidentally in a single sentence1 #bc3b
 and after a few words as to the source 
of the quotation in ,cor4 ii4 #i1 ,i    
proceed3 ,this1 however1 does not       
concern us here1 and we have merely to  
examine 'the saying of the ,lord1' which
 ,hegesippus opposes to the passage1    
',blessed are your eyes1' c41 this      
being1 in fact1 the sole object of my   
quotation from ,stephanus ,gobarus8 ,why
 does he not also state that ,i         
distinctly refer to ,tischendorf's      
denial that ,hegesippus was opposed to  
,paul8 ,and why does he not further     
state that1 instead of being the single 
notice from which the view of the       
anti-,pauline feelings of ,hegesippus is
 derived1 that conclusion is based upon 
the whole tendency of the fragments of  
his writings which remain8 ,it was not  
my purpose to enter into any discussion 

of the feeling against ,paul entertained
 by a large section of the early        
,church4 ,what ,i have to say upon that 
subject will appear in my examination of
 the ,acts of the ,apostles4  ,and      
again1 says ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 proceeding 
with his samples of ignored weightier   
lines of reasoning1      in the         
elaborate examination of ,justin        
,martyr's evangelical     quotations 444
 our author frequently refers to ,dr4   
,westcott's book     to censure it1 and 
many comparatively insignificant points 
are     discussed at great length4 ,why1
 then1 does he not once mention     ,dr4
 ,westcott's argument founded on the    
looseness of ,justin ,martyr's          
quotations from the ,old ,testament as  
throwing some light on the     degree of
 accuracy which he might be expected to 
show in quoting the     ,gospels8 ,a    
reader fresh from the perusal of        
,supernatural ,religion     will have   
his eyes opened as to the character of  
,justin's mind when     he turns to ,dr4

 ,westcott's book1 and finds how ,justin
 interweaves1     misnames1 and         
misquotes passages from the ,old        
,testament4 ,it cannot     be said that 
these are unimportant points4 #bd3a     
,now the fact is1 that in the first #aje
 pages of my examination of ,justin     
,martyr ,i do not once refer in my text 
to ,dr4 ,westcott's work2 and when ,i   
finally do so it is for the purposes of 
discussing what seemed to me a singular 
argument1 demanding a moment's          
attention4 #bd3b ,dr4 ,westcott1 whilst 
maintaining that ,justin's quotations   
are derived from our ,gospels1 argues   
that only in seven passages out of the  
very numerous citations in his writings 
does ,justin profess to give the exact  
words recorded in the ',memoirs4' #bd3c 
,the reason why ,i do not feel it at all
 necessary to discuss the other views of
 ,dr4 ,westcott here mentioned is       
practically given in the final sentence 
of a note quoted by ,dr4 ,lightfoot1    
#bd3d which sentence he has thought it  

right to omit4 ,the note is as follows1 
and the sentence to which ,i refer is   
put in italics3 ,for the arguments of   
apologetic criticism1 the reader may be 
referred to ,canon ,westcott's work ',on
 the ,canon1' pp4 #aab-aci4 ,dr4        
,westcott does not attempt to deny the  
fact that ,justin's quotations are      
different from the text of our ,gospels1
 but he accounts for his variations on  
grounds which are purely imaginary4 ,it 
is evident that so long as there are    
such variations to be explained away1 at
 least no proof of identity is possible4
 #bd3e ,it will be observed that        
although ,i do not discuss ,dr4         
,westcott's views1 ,i pointedly refer   
those who desire to know what the       
arguments on the other side are to his  
work4 ,let me repeat1 once for all1 that
 my object in examining the writings of 
the ,fathers is not to form theories and
 conjectures as to what documents they  
may possibly have used1 but to ascertain
 whether they afford any positive       

evidence regarding our existing         
,gospels1 which can warrant our         
believing1 upon their authority1 the    
miraculous contents of ,christianity4   
,any argument that1 although ,justin1   
for instance1 never once names any of   
our ,gospels1 and out of very numerous  
quotations of sayings of ,jesus very    
rarely indeed quotes anything which has 
an exact parallel in those ,gospels1 yet
 he may have made use of our ,gospels1  
because he also frequently misquotes    
passages from the ,old ,testament1 is   
worthless for the purpose of            
establishing the reality of ,divine     
,revelation4 ,from the point of view of 
such an enquiry1 ,i probably go much    
further into the examination of         
,justin's ,memoirs than was at all      
necessary4  ,space1 however1 forbids my 
further dwelling on these instances1    
regarding which ,dr4 ,lightfoot says3   
,in every instance which ,i have        
selected--and to which ,i have          
replied--these omitted considerations   

vitally affect the main question at     
issue4 #be3a ,if ,dr4 ,lightfoot had    
devoted half the time to mastering what 
the main question at issue really is1   
which he has wasted in finding minute   
faults in me1 he might have spared      
himself the trouble of giving these     
instances at all4 ,if such              
considerations have vital importance1   
the position of the question may easily 
be understood4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 however1
 evidently seems to suppose that ,i can 
be charged with want of candour and of  
fulness1 because ,i do not reproduce    
every shred and tatter of apologetic    
reasoning which divines continue to     
flaunt about after others have rejected 
them as useless4 ,he again accuses me1  
in connection with the fourth ,gospel1  
of systematically ignoring the arguments
 of apologetic writers1 and he          
represents my work as the very reverse  
of full and impartial4 ,once or twice1  
indeed1 he says1 he fastens on passages 
from such writers1 that he may make     

capital of them2 but their main         
arguments remain wholly unnoticed4 #bf3a
 ,i confess that ,i find it somewhat    
difficult to distinguish between those  
out of which ,i am said to make capital 
and those which ,dr4 ,lightfoot         
characterises as their main arguments1  
if ,i am to judge by the samples of them
 which he gives me4 ,for instance1 #bf3b
 he asks why1 when asserting that the   
,synoptics clearly represent the        
ministry of ,jesus as having been       
limited to a single year1 and his       
preaching as confined to ,galilee and   
,jerusalem1 whilst the fourth ,gospel   
distributes the teaching of ,jesus      
between ,galilee1 ,samaria1 and         
,jerusalem1 makes it extend over three  
years1 and refers to three passovers    
spent by ,jesus at ,jerusalem3  ,why    
then1 he asks1      does he not add that
 'apologetic' writers refer to such     
passages as     ,matt4 xiii4 #cg 7comp4 
,luke xiii4 #cd71 ',o ,jerusalem1       
,jerusalem 444     how often would ,i   

have gathered thy children together'8   
,here the     expression 'how often1' it
 is contended1 obliges us to postulate  
other visits1 probably several visits1  
to ,jerusalem1 which are not            
recorded in the ,synoptic ,gospels      
themselves4 ,and it may be suggested    
also that the twice-repeated notice of  
time in the context of ,st4     ,luke1  
',i do cures to-day and to-morrow1 and  
the third day ,i shall     be           
perfected1' ',i must walk to-day and    
to-morrow and the day     following1'   
points to the very duration of our      
,lord's ministry1 as     indicated by   
the fourth ,gospel4 ,if so1 the         
coincidence is the more     remarkable  
because it does not appear that ,st4    
,luke himself1 while     wording these  
prophetic words1 was aware of their full
 historical     import4 #bg3a  ,now it  
might have struck ,dr4 ,lightfoot that  
if anyone making an enquiry into the    
reality of ,divine ,revelation were     
obliged1 in order to escape charges of  

want of candour1 fulness1 and           
impartiality1 or insinuations of        
ignorance1 to reproduce and refute all  
apologetic arguments like this1 the     
duration of modern life would scarcely  
suffice for the task2 and if they should
 be written every one1 ,i suppose that  
even the world itself could not contain 
all the books that should be written4   
,it is very right that anyone believing 
it valid should advance this or any     
other reasoning in reply to objections1 
or in support of opinions2 but is it not
 somewhat unreasonable vehemently to    
condemn a writer for not exhausting     
himself1 and his readers1 by discussing 
pleas which are not only unsound in     
themselves1 but irrelevant to the direct
 purpose of his work8 ,i have only      
advanced objections against the         
,johannine authorship of the fourth     
,gospel1 which seem to me unrefuted by  
any of the explanations offered4  ,let  
me now turn to more important instances4
 ,dr4 ,lightfoot asks3 ,why1 when he is 

endeavouring to minimise1 if not deny1  
the ,hebraic character of the fourth    
,gospel1 does he wholly ignore the      
investigations of ,luthardt and others1 
which 7as 'apologists' venture to think7
 show that the whole texture of the     
language the fourth ,gospel is ,hebraic8
 #bg3b ,now my statements with regard to
 the language of the ,apocalypse and    
fourth ,gospel are as follows4 ,of the  
,apocalypse ,i say3 ,the language in    
which the book is written is the most   
,hebraistic ,greek of the ,new          
,testament2 #bh3a and further on3 ,the  
barbarous ,hebraistic ,greek and abrupt1
 inelegant diction are natural to the   
unlettered fisherman of ,galilee4 #bh3b 
,of the ,gospel ,i say3 ,instead of the 
,hebraistic ,greek and harsh diction    
which might be expected from the        
unlettered and ignorant #bh3c fisherman 
of ,galilee1 we find1 in the fourth     
,gospel1 the purest and least           
,hebraistic ,greek of any of the        
,gospels 7some parts of the third       

synoptic1 perhaps1 alone excepted71 and 
a refinement and beauty of composition  
whose charm has captivated the world1 c4
 #bh3d ,in another place ,i say3 ,the   
language in which the ,gospel is        
written1 as we have already mentioned1  
is much less ,hebraic than that of the  
other ,gospels1 with the exception1     
perhaps1 of parts of the ,gospel        
according to ,luke1 and its ,hebraisms  
are not on the whole greater than was   
almost invariably the case with         
,hellenistic ,greek2 but its composition
 is distinguished by peculiar           
smoothness1 grace1 and beauty1 and in   
this respect it is assigned the first   
rank amongst the ,gospels4 #bh3e ,i     
believe that ,i do not say another word 
as to the texture of the language of the
 fourth ,gospel1 and it will be observed
 that my remarks are almost wholly      
limited to the comparative quality of   
the ,greek of the fourth ,gospel1 on the
 one hand1 and the ,apocalypse and      
,synoptics on the other1 and that they  

do not exclude ,hebraisms4 ,the views   
expressed might be supported by         
numberless authorities4 ,as ,dr4        
,lightfoot accuses me of wholly ignoring
 the results at which ,luthardt and     
others have arrived1 ,i will quote what 
,luthardt says of the two works3 ,the   
difference of the language1 as well in  
regard to grammar and style as to       
doctrine1 is1 of course1 in a high      
degree remarkable 444 ,as regards       
grammar1 the ,gospel is written in      
correct1 the ,apocalypse in incorrect   
,greek4 ,he argues that this is a       
consequence of sovereign freedom in the 
latter1 and that from the nature of the 
composition the author of the           
,apocalypse wrote in an artificial      
style1 and could both have spoken and   
written otherwise4 ,the errors are not  
errors of ignorance1 but intentional    
emancipations from the rules of grammar 
7671 in imitation of ancient prophetic  
style4 ,presently he proceeds3 ,if1     
then1 on the one hand1 the ,apocalypse  

is written in worse ,greek and less     
correctly than its author was able to   
speak and write1 the question1 on the   
hand1 is1 whether the ,gospel is not in 
too good ,greek to be credited to a born
 ,jew and ,palestinian4 ,luthardt       
maintains that the style of the ,gospel 
betrays the born ,jew1 and certainly not
 the ,greek1 but the force which he     
intends to give to all this reasoning is
 clearly indicated by the conclusion at 
which he finally arrives1 that the      
linguistic gulf between the ,gospel and 
the ,apocalypse is not impassable4 #bi3a
 ,this result from so staunch an        
apologist1 obviously to minimise the    
,hebraic character of the ,apocalypse1  
is not after all so strikingly different
 from my representation4 ,take again the
 opinion of so eminent an apologist as  
,bleek3 ,the language of the ,apocalypse
 in its whole character is beyond       
comparison harsher1 rougher1 looser1 and
 presents grosser incorrectness than any
 other book of the ,new ,testament1     

whilst the language of the ,gospel is   
certainly not pure ,greek1 but is beyond
 comparison more grammatically correct4 
#bi3b ,i am merely replying1 to the     
statements of ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 and not  
arguing afresh regarding the language of
 the fourth ,gospel1 or ,i might produce
 very different arguments and           
authorities1 but ,i may remark that the 
critical dilemma which ,i have          
represented1 in reviewing the fourth    
,gospel1 is not merely dependent upon   
linguistic considerations1 but arises   
out of the aggregate and conflicting    
phenomena presented by the ,apocalypse  
on the one hand and the ,gospel on the  
other4  ,space only allows of my        
referring to one other instance4 #cj3a  
,dr4 ,lightfoot says--      ,if by any  
chance he condescends to discuss a      
question1 he takes     care to fasten on
 the least likely solution of           
'apologists' 7e4g4     the              
identification of ,sychar and ,shechem71
 #cj3b omitting     altogether to notice

 others4  ,in a note ,dr4 ,lightfoot    
adds3--      ,travellers and            
'apologists' alike now more commonly    
identify ,sychar     with the village   
bearing the ,arabic name ,askar4 ,this  
fact is not     mentioned by our author4
 ,he says moreover1 ',it is admitted    
that     there was no such place 7as    
,sychar1 ,greek3 ,suchr71 and apologetic
     ingenuity is severely taxed to     
explain the difficulty4' ,this is       
altogether untrue4 ,others besides      
'apologists' point to passages in       
the ,talmud which speak of 'the well of 
,suchar 7or ,sochar or     ,sichar72'   
see ,neubauer1 ',la ,gographie du       
,talmud1' p4 #afi f4 ,our     author    
refers in his note to an article by     
,delitzsch1 7',zeitschr4     ,j4 ,luth4 
,theol41' #ahef1 p4 #bdj f47 ,he cannot 
have read the     article1 for these    
,talmudic references are its main       
purport4     #cj3c  ,i may perhaps be   
allowed to refer1 first1 to the two     
sentences which ,i have taken the       

liberty of putting in italics4 ,if it be
 possible for an apologist to apologise1
 an apology is surely due to the readers
 of the ,contemporary ,review1 at least1
 for this style of criticism1 to which1 
,i doubt not1 they are as little        
accustomed as ,i am myself4 ,there is no
 satisfying ,dr4 ,lightfoot4 ,i give him
 references1 and he accuses me of       
literary browbeating and subtle         
intimidation2 ,i do not give references1
 and he gives me the lie4 ,i refer to   
the article of ,delitzsch in support of 
my specific statement that he rejects   
the identification of ,sychar with      
,sichem1 and apparently because ,i do   
not quote the whole study ,dr4          
,lightfoot courteously asserts that ,i  
cannot have read it4 #ca3a  ,my         
statement #ca3b is1 that it is admitted 
that there was no such place as         
,sychar--,i ought to have added1 except 
by apologists who never admit           
anything--but ,i thought that in saying3
 and apologetic ingenuity is severely   

taxed to explain the difficulty1 ,i had 
sufficiently excepted apologists1 and   
indicated that many assertions and      
conjectures are advanced by them for    
that purpose4 ,i mention that the       
conjecture which identifies ,sychar and 
,sichem is rejected by some1 refer to   
,credner's supposition that the         
alteration may be due to some error     
committed by a secretary in writing down
 the ,gospel from the dictation of the  
,apostle1 and that ,sichem is meant1 and
 ,i state the nickname hypothesis of    
,hengstenberg and others4 ,it is        
undeniable that1 with the exception of  
some vague references in the ,talmud to 
a somewhat similar1 but not identical1  
name1 the locality of which is quite    
uncertain1 no place bearing1 or having  
borne1 the designation of ,sychar is    
known4 ,the ordinary apologetic theory1 
as ,dr4 ,lightfoot may find in any      
common source of information1--,dr4     
,smith's ,dictionary of the ,bible1 for 
instance--is the delightfully           

comprehensive one3 ,sychar was either a 
name applied to the town of ,shechem1 or
 it was an independent place4 ,this     
authority1 however1 goes clean against  
,dr4 ,lightfoot's assertion1 for it     
continues3 ,the first of these          
alternatives is now almost universally  
accepted4 ,lightfoot #cb3a considered   
,sychar a mere alteration of the name   
,sichem1 both representing the same     
place4 ,he found a reference in the     
,talmud to ,ain ,socar1 and with great  
hesitation he associated the name with  
,sychar4 ,may we not venture to render  
it the well of ,sychar8 ,and after      
detailed extracts and explanations he   
says3 ,and now let the reader give us   
his judgment as to its name and place1  
whether it doth not seem to have some   
relation with our 'well of ,sychar4' ,it
 may be disputed on either side4        
,wieseler1 who first1 in more recent    
times1 developed the conjectures of     
,lightfoot1 argues3 ,in the first place1
 there can be no doubt that by ,greek3  

,suchar ,sichem is meant1 and he adds1 a
 few lines after3 ,regarding this there 
is no controversy amongst interpreters4 
,he totally rejects the idea of such in 
alteration of the name occurring in     
translation1 which he says is           
unprecedented4 ,he therefore concludes  
that in ,greek3 ,suchar we have another 
name for ,sichem4 ,he merely submits    
this1 however1 as a new hypothesis to   
the judgment of the reader1 #cb3b which 
alone shows the uncertainty of the      
suggestion4 ,lightfoot and ,wieseler are
 substantially followed by ,olshausen1  
#cb3c ,de ,wette1 #cb3d ,hug1 #cb3e     
,bunsen1 #cb3f ,riggenbach1 #cb3g       
,godet1 #cb3h and others4 ,bleek1 #cb3i 
in spite of the arguments of ,delitzsch 
and ,ewald1 and their ,talmudic         
researches1 considers that the old town 
of ,sichem is meant4 ,delitzsch1 #cb3aj 
,ewald1 #cb3aa ,lange1 #cb3ab ,meyer1   
#cb3ac and others think that ,sychar was
 near to1 but distinct from1 ,sichem4   
,lcke #cc3a is very undecided4 ,he      

recognises the extraordinary difference 
in the name ,sychar4 ,he does not       
favourably receive ,lightfoot's         
arguments regarding an alteration of the
 name of ,sichem1 nor his conjectures as
 to the relation of the place mentioned 
in the ,talmud to ,sichem1 which he     
thinks is very doubtful1 and he seems to
 incline rather to an accidental        
corruption of ,sichem into ,sychar1     
although he feels the great difficulties
 in the way of such an explanation4     
,ewald condemns the ,talmudische        
,studien of ,delitzsch as generally more
 complicating than clearing up          
difficulties1 and his views as commonly 
incorrect1 and1 whilst agreeing with him
 that ,sychar cannot be the same place  
as ,sichem1 he points out that the site 
of the valley of the well of the ,talmud
 is certainly doubtful4 #cc3b ,he       
explains his own views1 however1 more   
clearly in another place3--      ,that  
this 7,sychar7 cannot be the large1     
ancient ,sikhem1 which1 at     the time 

when the ,gospel was written1 was       
probably already generally     called   
,neapolis in ,greek writings1 has been  
already stated2 it is     the place     
still called with an altered ,arabic    
name ,al ',askar1 east     of ,napls4   
,it is indeed difficult to prove that   
,sychar could stand     for ,sikhem1    
either through change of pronunciation1 
or for any other     reason1 and the    
addition ,greek3 legomen does not       
indicate1 here any     more than in xi4 
#ed1 so large and generally known a town
 as ,sikhem4     or ,flavia ,neapolis4  
#cc3c  ,mr4 ,sanday1 #cc3d of whose able
 work ,dr4 ,lightfoot directly speaks1  
says3--      ,the name ,sychar is not   
the common one1 ,sichem1 but is a mock  
title     7'liar' or 'drunkard'7 that   
was given to the town by the ,jews4     
#cc3e ,this is a clear reminiscence of  
the vernacular that the     ,apostle    
spoke in his youth1 and is a strong     
touch of nature4 ,it is     not quite   
certain that the name ,sychar has this  

force1 but the     hypothesis is in     
itself more likely than1 c4444 ,it is   
not1     however1 by any means          
improbable that ,sychar may represent1  
not     ,sichem1 but the modern village 
,askar1 which is somewhat nearer to     
,jacob's ,well4  ,to quote one of the   
latest travellers and apologists1 ,dr4  
,farrar says3 ,from what the name       
,sychar is derived is uncertain4 ,the   
word ,greek3 legomenos in ,st4 ,john    
seems to imply a sobriquet4 ,it may be  
'a lie1' 'drunken1' or 'a sepulchre4'   
,sychar may possibly have been a village
 nearer the well than ,sichem1 on the   
site of the village now called ,el      
,askar4 #cd3a ,as ,dr4 ,lightfoot       
specially mentions ,neubauer1 his       
opinion may be substantially given in a 
single sentence3 ,la ,mischna mentionne 
un endroit appel 'la plaine             
d',en-,sokher1' qui est peut-tre le     
,sychar de l',evangile4 ,he had a few   
lines before said3 ,il est donc plus    
logique de ne pas identifier ,sychar    

avec ,sichem4 #cd3b ,now1 with regard to
 all these theories1 and especially in  
so far as they connect ,sychar with ,el 
,askar1 let me quote a few more words in
 conclusion1 from a common source of    
information3--      ,on the other hand  
there is an etymological difficulty in  
the way of     this identification4     
',askar begins with the letter ',ain1   
which     ,sychar does not appear to    
have contained2 a letter too stubborn   
and     enduring to be easily either    
dropped or assumed in a name 444 ,these 
considerations have been stated not so  
much with the hope of leading     to any
 conclusion on the identity of ,sychar1 
which seems hopeless1     as with the   
desire to show that the ordinary        
explanation is not     nearly so obvious
 as it is usually assumed to be4 #cd3c  
,mr4 ,grove is very right4  ,i have been
 careful only to quote from writers who 
are either apologetic1 or far from      
belonging to heterodox schools4 ,is it  
not perfectly clear that no place of the

 name of ,sychar can be reasonably      
identified8 ,the case1 in fact1 simply  
stands thus3--,as the ,gospel mentions a
 town called ,sychar1 apologists        
maintain that there must have been such 
a place1 and attempt by various theories
 to find a site for it4 ,it is certain1 
however1 that even in the days of ,st4  
,jerome there was no real trace of such 
a town1 and apologists and travellers   
have not since been able to discover it1
 except in their own imaginations4      
,with regard to the insinuation that the
 references given in my notes constitute
 a subtle mode of intimidation and      
literary browbeating1 ,canon ,lightfoot 
omits to say that ,i as fully and       
candidly refer to those who maintain    
views wholly different from my own1 as  
to those who support me4 ,it is very    
possible1 considering the number of     
these references1 that ,i may have      
committed some errors1 and ,i can only  
say that ,i shall very thankfully       
receive from ,dr4 ,lightfoot any        

corrections which he may be good enough 
to point out4 ,instead of intimidation  
and browbeating1 my sole desire has been
 to indicate to all who may be anxious  
further to examine questions in debate1 
works in which they may find them       
discussed4 ,it is time that the system  
of advancing apologetic opinions with   
perfect assurance1 and without a hint   
that they are disputed by anyone1 should
 come to an end1 and that earnest men   
should be made acquainted with the true 
state of the case4 ,as ,dr4 ,mozley     
rightly and honestly says3 ,the majority
 of mankind1 perhaps1 owe their belief  
rather to the outward influence of      
custom and education than to any strong 
principle of faith within2 and it is to 
be feared that many1 if they came to    
perceive how wonderful what they        
believed was1 would not find their      
belief so easy and so matter-of-course a
 thing as they appear to find it4 #cf3a 
,i shall not here follow ,dr4 ,lightfoot
 into his general remarks regarding my  

'conclusions1' nor shall ,i proceed1 in 
this article1 to discuss the dilemma in 
which he attempts to involve me through 
his misunderstanding and consequent     
misstatement1 of my views regarding the 
,supreme ,being4 ,i am almost inclined  
to think that ,i can have the pleasure  
of agreeing with him in one important   
point1 at least1 before coming to a     
close4 ,when ,i read the curiously      
modified statement that ,i have         
studiously avoided committing myself to 
a belief in a universal ,father1 or a   
moral ,governor1 or even in a ,personal 
,god1 it seems clear to me that the     
,supernatural ,religion about which ,dr4
 ,lightfoot has been writing cannot be  
my work1 but is simply a work of his own
 imagination4 ,that work cannot possibly
 have contained1 for instance1 the      
chapter on ,anthropomorphic ,divinity1  
#cf3b in which1 on the contrary1 ,i     
studiously commit myself to very decided
 disbelief in such a ,personal ,god as  
he means4 ,in no way inconsistent with  

that chapter are my concluding remarks1 
contrasting with the spasmodic ,jewish  
,divinity a ,supreme ,being manifested  
in the operation of invariable          
laws--whose very invariability is the   
guarantee of beneficence and security4  
,if ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 however1 succeeded 
in convicting me of inconsistency in    
those final expressions1 there could be 
no doubt which view must logically be   
abandoned1 and it would be a new        
sensation to secure the approval of a   
divine by the unhesitating destruction  
of the last page of my work4  ,dr4      
,lightfoot1 again1 refers to ,mr4       
,mill's ,three ,essays on ,religion1 but
 he does not appear to have very deeply 
studied that work4 ,i confess that ,i do
 not entirely agree with some views     
therein expressed1 and ,i hope that1    
hereafter1 ,i may have an opportunity of
 explaining what they are2 but ,i am    
surprised that ,dr4 ,lightfoot has      
failed to observe how singularly that   
great ,thinker supports the general     

results of ,supernatural ,religion1 to  
the point even of a frequent agreement  
almost in words4 ,if ,dr4 ,lightfoot had
 studied ,mill a little more closely1 he
 would not have committed the serious   
error of arguing3 ,obviously1 if the    
author has established his conclusions  
in the first part1 the second and third 
are altogether superfluous4 ,it is      
somewhat strange1 therefore1 that more  
than three-fourths of the whole work    
should be devoted to this needless task4
 #cg3a ,now my argument in the first    
part is not that miracles are           
impossible--a thesis which it is quite  
unnecessary to maintain--but the much   
more simple one that miracles are       
antecedently incredible4 ,having shown  
that they are so1 and appreciated the   
true nature of the allegation of        
miracles1 and the amount of evidence    
requisite to establish it1 ,i proceed to
 examine the evidence which is actually 
produced in support of the assertion    
that1 although miracles are antecedently

 incredible1 they nevertheless took     
place4 ,mr4 ,mill clearly supports me in
 this course4 ,he states the main       
principle of my argument thus3 ,a       
revelation1 therefore1 cannot be proved 
divine unless by external evidence2 that
 is1 by the exhibition of supernatural  
facts4 ,and we have to consider1 whether
 it is possible to prove supernatural   
facts1 and if it is1 what evidence is   
required to prove them4 #cg3b ,mr4 ,mill
 decides that it is possible to prove   
the occurrence of a supernatural fact1  
if it actually occurred1 and after      
showing the great preponderance of      
evidence against miracles1 he says3     
,against this weight of negative        
evidence we have to set such positive   
evidence as is produced in attestation  
of exceptions2 in other words1 the      
positive evidences of miracles4 ,and ,i 
have already admitted that this evidence
 might conceivably have been such as to 
make the exception equally certain with 
the rule4 #ch3a ,mr4 ,mill's opinion of 

the evidence actually produced is not   
flattering1 and may be compared with my 
results3      ,but the evidence of      
miracles1 at least to ,protestant       
,christians1 is     not1 in our day1 of 
this cogent description4 ,it is not the 
evidence     of our senses1 but of      
witnesses1 and even this not at first   
hand1     but resting on the attestation
 of books and traditions4 ,and even in  
the case of the original eye-witnesses1 
the supernatural facts     asserted on  
their alleged testimony are not of the  
transcendent     character supposed in  
our example1 about the nature of which1 
or the     impossibility of their having
 had a natural origin1 there could be   
little room for doubt4 ,on the contrary1
 the recorded miracles are1     in the  
first place1 generally such as it would 
have been extremely     difficult to    
verify as matters of fact1 and in the   
next place1 are     hardly ever beyond  
the possibility of having been brought  
about by     human means or by the      

spontaneous agencies of nature4 #ch3b   
,it is to substantiate the statements   
made here1 and1 in fact1 to confirm the 
philosophical conclusion by the         
historical proof1 that ,i enter into an 
examination of the four ,gospels1 as the
 chief witnesses for miracles4 ,to those
 who have already ascertained the       
frivolous nature of that testimony it   
may1 no doubt1 seem useless labour to   
examine it in detail2 but it is scarcely
 conceivable that an ecclesiastic who   
professes to base his faith upon those  
records should represent such a process 
as useless4 ,in endeavouring to place me
 on the forks of a dilemma1 in fact1    
,dr4 ,lightfoot has betrayed that he    
altogether fails to appreciate the      
question at issue1 or to comprehend the 
position of miracles in relation to     
philosophical and historical enquiry4   
,instead of being altogether            
superfluous1 my examination of          
witnesses1 in the second and third      
parts1 has more correctly been          

represented by able critics as          
incomplete1 from the omission of the    
remaining documents of the ,new         
,testament4 ,i foresaw1 and myself to   
some degree admitted1 the justice of    
this argument2 #ci3a but my work being  
already bulky enough1 ,i reserved to    
another volume the completion of the    
enquiry4  ,i cannot close this article  
without expressing my regret that so    
much which is personal and unworthy has 
been introduced into the discussion of a
 great and profoundly important subject4
 ,dr4 ,lightfoot is too able and too    
earnest a man not to recognise that no  
occasional errors or faults in a writer 
can really affect the validity of his   
argument1 and instead of mere general   
and desultory efforts to do some damage 
to me1 it would be much more to the     
purpose were he seriously to endeavour  
to refute my reasoning4 ,i have no      
desire to escape hard hitting or to     
avoid fair fight1 and ,i feel unfeigned 
respect for many of my critics who1     

differing toto coelo from my views1 have
 with vigorous ability attacked my      
arguments without altogether forgetting 
the courtesy due even to an enemy4 ,dr4 
,lightfoot will not find me inattentive 
to courteous reasoning1 nor indifferent 
to earnest criticism1 and1 whatever he  
may think1 ,i promise him that no one   
will be more ready respectfully to      
follow every serious line of argument   
than the author of ,supernatural        
,religion4      ,,ii4  ,,the ,,silence  
,,of ,,eusebius--,,the ,,ignatian       
,,epistles4 ,endnote #dj3a   ,this work 
has scarcely yet been twelve months     
before the public1 but both in this     
country and in ,america and elsewhere it
 has been subjected to such wide and    
searching criticism by writers of all   
shades of opinion1 that ,i may perhaps  
be permitted to make a few remarks1 and 
to review some of my ,reviewers4 ,i must
 first1 however1 beg leave to express my
 gratitude to that large majority of my 
critics who have bestowed generous      

commendation upon the work1 and         
liberally encouraged its completion4 ,i 
have to thank others1 who1 differing    
totally from my conclusions1 have       
nevertheless temperately argued against 
them1 for the courtesy with which they  
have treated an opponent whose views    
must necessarily have offended them1 and
 ,i can only say that1 whilst such a    
course has commanded my unfeigned       
respect1 it has certainly not diminished
 the attention with which ,i have       
followed their arguments4  ,there are   
two serious misapprehensions of the     
purpose and line of argument of this    
work which ,i desire to correct4 ,some  
critics have objected that1 if ,i had   
succeeded in establishing the           
proposition advanced in the first part1 
the second and third parts need not have
 been written3 in fact1 that the        
historical argument against miracles is 
only necessary in consequence of the    
failure of the philosophical4 ,now ,i   
contend that the historical is the      

necessary complement of the             
philosophical argument1 and that both   
are equally requisite to completeness in
 dealing with the subject4 ,the         
preliminary affirmation is not that     
miracles are impossible1 but that they  
are antecedently incredible4 ,the       
counter-allegation is that1 although    
miracles may be antecedently incredible1
 they nevertheless actually took place4 
,it is1 therefore1 necessary1 not only  
to establish the antecedent             
incredibility1 but to examine the       
validity of the allegation that certain 
miracles occurred1 and this involves the
 historical enquiry into the evidence   
for the ,gospels which occupies the     
second and third parts4 ,indeed1 many   
will not acknowledge the case to be     
complete until other witnesses are      
questioned in a succeeding volume4 444  
,the second point to which ,i desire to 
refer is a statement which has          
frequently been made that1 in the second
 and third parts1 ,i endeavour to prove 

that the four canonical ,gospels were   
not written until the end of the second 
century4 ,this error is of course       
closely connected with that which has   
just been discussed1 but it is difficult
 to understand how anyone who had taken 
the slightest trouble to ascertain the  
nature of the argument1 and to state it 
fairly1 could have fallen into it4 ,the 
fact is that no attempt is made to prove
 anything with regard to the ,gospels4  
,the evidence for them is merely        
examined1 and it is found that1 so far  
from their affording sufficient         
testimony to warrant belief in the      
actual occurrence of miracles declared  
to be antecedently incredible1 there is 
not a certain trace even of the         
existence of the ,gospels for a century 
and a half after those miracles are     
alleged to have occurred1 and nothing   
whatever to attest their authenticity   
and truth4 ,this is a very different    
thing from an endeavour to establish    
some special theory of my own1 and it is

 because this line of argument has not  
been understood1 that some critics have 
expressed surprise at the decisive      
rejection of mere conjectures and       
possibilities as evidence4 ,in a case of
 such importance1 no testimony which is 
not clear and indubitable could be of   
any value1 but the evidence producible  
for the canonical ,gospels falls very   
far short even of ordinary requirements1
 and in relation to miracles it is      
scarcely deserving of serious           
consideration4  ,it has been argued     
that1 even if there be no evidence for  
our special gospels1 ,i admit that      
gospels very similar must early have    
been in existence1 and that these       
equally represent the same prevailing   
belief as the canonical ,gospels3       
consequently that ,i merely change1     
without shaking1 the witnesses4 ,those  
who advance this argument1 however1     
totally overlook the fact that it is not
 the reality of the superstitious belief
 which is in question1 but the reality  

of the miracles1 and the sufficiency of 
the witnesses to establish them4 ,what  
such objectors urge practically amounts 
to this3 that we should believe in the  
actual occurrence of certain miracles   
contradictory to all experience1 out of 
a mass of false miracles which are      
reported but never really took place1   
because some unknown persons in an      
ignorant and superstitious age1 who give
 no evidence of personal knowledge1 or  
of careful investigation1 have written  
an account of them1 and other persons1  
equally ignorant and superstitious1 have
 believed them4 ,i venture to say that  
no one who advances the argument to     
which ,i am referring can have realised 
the nature of the question at issue1 and
 the relation of miracles to the order  
of nature4  ,the last of these general  
objections to which ,i need now refer is
 the statement1 that the difficulty with
 regard to the ,gospels commences       
precisely where my examination ends1 and
 that ,i am bound to explain how1 if no 

trace of their existence is previously  
discoverable1 the four ,gospels are     
suddenly found in general circulation at
 the end of the second century1 and     
quoted as authoritative documents by    
such writers as ,irenaeus4 ,my reply is 
that it is totally unnecessary for me to
 account for this4 ,no one acquainted   
with the history of pseudonymic         
literature in the second century1 and   
with the rapid circulation and ready    
acceptance of spurious works tending to 
edification1 could for a moment regard  
the canonical position of any ,gospel at
 the end of that century either as      
evidence of its authenticity or early   
origin4 ,that which concerns us chiefly 
is not evidence regarding the end of the
 second but the beginning of the first  
century4 ,even if we took the statements
 of ,irenaeus and later ,fathers1 like  
the ,alexandrian ,clement1 ,tertullian  
and ,origen1 about the ,gospels1 they   
are absolutely without value except as  
personal opinion at a late date1 for    

which no sufficient grounds are shown4  
,of the earlier history of those        
,gospels there is not a distinct trace1 
except of a nature which altogether     
discredits them as witnesses for        
miracles4  ,after having carefully      
weighed the arguments which have been   
advanced against this work1 ,i venture  
to express strengthened conviction of   
the truth of its conclusions4 ,the best 
and most powerful reasons which able    
divines and apologists have been able to
 bring forward against its main argument
 have1 ,i submit1 not only failed to    
shake it1 but have1 by inference1 shown 
it to be unassailable4 ,very many of    
those who have professedly advanced     
against the citadel itself have         
practically attacked nothing but some   
outlying fort1 which was scarcely worth 
defence1 whilst others1 who have        
seriously attempted an assault1 have    
shown that the ,church has no artillery 
capable of making a practicable breach  
in the rationalistic stronghold4 ,i say 

this solely in reference to the argument
 which ,i have taken upon myself to     
represent1 and in no sense of my own    
individual share in its maintenance4  ,i
 must now address myself more           
particularly to two of my critics who1  
with great ability and learning1 have   
subjected this work to the most         
elaborate and microscopic criticism of  
which personal earnestness and official 
zeal are capable4 ,i am sincerely       
obliged to ,professor ,lightfoot and    
,dr4 ,westcott for the minute attention 
they have bestowed upon my book4 ,i had 
myself directly attacked the views of   
,dr4 ,westcott1 and of course could only
 expect him to do his best or his worst 
against me in reply2 and ,i am not      
surprised at the vigour with which ,dr4 
,lightfoot has assailed a work so       
opposed to principles which he himself  
holds sacred1 although ,i may be        
permitted to express my regret that he  
has not done so in a spirit more worthy 
of the cause which he defends4 ,in spite

 of hostile criticism of very unusual   
minuteness and ability1 no flaw or error
 has been pointed out which in the      
slightest degree affects my main        
argument1 and ,i consider that every    
point yet objected to by ,dr4           
,lightfoot1 or indicated by ,dr4        
,westcott1 might be withdrawn without at
 all weakening my position4 ,these      
objections1 ,i may say1 refer solely to 
details1 and only follow side issues1   
but the attack1 if impotent against the 
main position1 has in many cases been   
insidiously directed against notes and  
passing references1 and a plentiful     
sprinkling of such words as             
misstatements and misrepresentations    
along the line may have given it a      
formidable appearance and malicious     
effect1 which render it worth while once
 for all to meet it in detail4   ,the   
first point to which ,i shall refer is  
an elaborate argument by ,dr4 ,lightfoot
 regarding the ,,silence ,,of           
,,eusebius4 #de3a ,i had called         

attention to the importance of          
considering the silence of the ,fathers1
 under certain conditions2 #de3b and ,i 
might1 omitting his curious limitation1 
adopt ,dr4 ,lightfoot's opening comment 
upon this as singularly descriptive of  
the state of the case3 ,in one province 
more especially1 relating to the        
external evidences for the ,gospels1    
silence occupies a prominent place4 ,dr4
 ,lightfoot proposes to interrogate this
 mysterious oracle1 and he considers    
that the response elicited will not be  
at all ambiguous4 ,i might again agree  
with him1 but that unambiguous response 
can scarcely be pronounced very         
satisfactory for the ,gospels4 ,such    
silence may be very eloquent1 but after 
all it is only the eloquence            
of--silence4 ,i have not yet met with   
the argument anywhere that1 because none
 of the early ,fathers quote our        
,canonical ,gospels1 or say anything    
with regard to them1 the fact is        
unambiguous evidence that they were well

 acquainted with them1 and considered   
them apostolic and authoritative4 ,dr4  
,lightfoot's argument from ,silence is1 
for the present at least1 limited to    
,eusebius4  ,the point on which the     
argument turns is this3 ,after examining
 the whole of the extant writings of the
 early ,fathers1 and finding them a     
complete blank as regards the canonical 
,gospels1 if1 by their use of apocryphal
 works and other indications1 they are  
not evidence against them1 ,i supplement
 this1 in the case of ,hegesippus1      
,papias1 and ,dionysius of ,corinth1 by 
the inference that1 as ,eusebius does   
not state that their lost works         
contained any evidence for the ,gospels1
 they actually did not contain any4 ,but
 before proceeding to discuss the point1
 it is necessary that a proper estimate 
should be formed of its importance to   
the main argument of my work4 ,the      
evident labour which ,professor         
,lightfoot has expended upon the        
preparation of his attack1 the space    

devoted to it1 and his own express      
words1 would naturally lead most readers
 to suppose that it has almost a vital  
bearing upon my conclusions4 ,dr4       
,lightfoot says1 after quoting the      
passages in which ,i appeal to the      
silence of ,eusebius3--      ,this      
indeed is the fundamental assumption    
which lies at the basis     of his      
reasoning2 and the reader will not need 
to be reminded how     much of the      
argument falls to pieces if this basis  
should prove to     be unsound4 ,a wise 
master-builder would therefore have     
looked to his     foundations first1 and
 assured himself of their strength1     
before he     piled up his fabric to    
this height4 ,this our author has       
altogether     neglected to do4 #df3a   
,towards the close of his article1 after
 triumphantly expressing his belief that
 his main conclusions are irrefragable1 
he further says3--      ,if they are1   
then the reader will not fail to see how
 large a part     of the argument in    

,supernatural ,religion has crumbled to 
pieces4     #df3b  ,i do not doubt that 
,dr4 ,lightfoot sincerely believes this1
 but he must allow me to say that he is 
thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of  
the importance of the point1 and that1  
as regards this work1 the               
representations made in the above       
passages are a very strange             
exaggeration4 ,i am unfortunately too   
familiar1 in connection with criticism  
on this book1 with instances of vast    
expenditure of time and strength in     
attacking points to which ,i attach no  
importance whatever1 and which in       
themselves have scarcely any value4     
,when writers1 after an amount of       
demonstration which must have conveyed  
the impression that vital interests were
 at stake1 have1 at least in their own  
opinion1 proved that ,i have omitted to 
dot an i1 cross a t1 or insert an       
inverted comma1 they have really left   
the question precisely where it was4    
,now1 in the present instance1 the whole

 extent of the argument which is based  
upon the silence of ,eusebius is an     
inference regarding some lost works of  
three writers only1 which might         
altogether be withdrawn without         
affecting the case4 ,the object of my   
investigation is to discover what       
evidence actually exists in the works of
 early writers regarding our ,gospels4  
,in the fragments which remain of the   
works of three writers1 ,hegesippus1    
,papias1 and ,dionysius of ,corinth1 ,i 
do not find any evidence of acquaintance
 with these ,gospels1--the works        
mentioned by ,papias being1 ,i contend1 
different from the existing ,gospels    
attributed to ,matthew and ,mark4       
,whether ,i am right or not in this does
 not affect the present discussion4 ,it 
is an unquestioned fact that ,eusebius  
does not mention that the lost works of 
these writers contained any reference   
to1 or information about1 the ,gospels1 
nor have we any statement from any other
 author to that effect4 ,the objection  

of ,dr4 ,lightfoot is limited to a      
denial that the silence of ,eusebius    
warrants the inference that1 because he 
does not state that these writers made  
quotations from or references to        
undisputed canonical books1 the lost    
works did not contain any2 it does not1 
however1 extend to interesting          
information regarding those books1 which
 he admits it was the purpose of        
,eusebius to record4 ,to give ,dr4      
,lightfoot's statements1 which ,i am    
examining1 the fullest possible support1
 however1 suppose that ,i abandon       
,eusebius altogether1 and do not draw   
any inference of any kind from him      
beyond his positive statements1 how     
would my case stand8 ,simply as complete
 as it well could be3 ,hegesippus1      
,papias1 and ,dionysius do not furnish  
any evidence in favour of the ,gospels4 
,the reader1 therefore1 will not fail to
 see how serious a misstatement ,dr4    
,lightfoot has made1 and how little the 
argument of ,supernatural ,religion     

would be affected even if he established
 much more than he has asserted4  ,we   
may now proceed to consider ,dr4        
,lightfoot's argument itself4 ,he       
carefully and distinctly defines what he
 understands to be the declared         
intention of ,eusebius in composing his 
history1 as regards the mention or use  
of the disputed and undisputed canonical
 books in the writings of the ,fathers1 
and in order to do him full justice ,i  
will quote his words1 merely taking the 
liberty1 for facility of reference1 of  
dividing his statement into three       
paragraphs4 ,he says3      ,eusebius    
therefore proposes to treat these two   
classes of writings     in two different
 ways4 ,this is the cardinal point of   
the passage4      7#a7 ,of the          
,antilegomena he pledges himself to     
record when any     ancient writer      
employs any book belonging to their     
class 7,greek3     tines hopoiais       
kechrntai72      7#b7 but as regards the
 undisputed ,canonical books1 he only   

professes to mention them when such a   
writer has something to tell     about  
them 7,greek3 tina peri tn endiathkon   
eirtai74 ,any     anecdote of interest  
respecting them1 as also respecting the 
others 7,greek3 tn m toioutn71 will be  
recorded4      7#c7 ,but in their case  
he nowhere leads us to expect that he   
will     allude to mere quotations1     
however numerous and however precise4   
#dh3a  ,in order to dispose of the only 
one of these points upon which we can   
differ1 ,i will first refer to the      
third4 ,did ,eusebius intend to point   
out mere quotations of the books which  
he considered undisputed8 ,as a matter  
of fact1 he actually did point such out 
in the case of the #ast ,epistle of     
,peter and the #ast ,epistle of ,john1  
which he repeatedly and in the most     
emphatic manner declared to be          
undisputed4 #di3a ,this is admitted by  
,dr4 ,lightfoot4 ,that he omitted to    
mention a reference to the ,epistle to  
the ,corinthians in the ,epistle of     

,clement of ,rome1 or the reference by  
,theophilus to the ,gospel of ,john1 and
 other supposed quotations1 might be set
 down as much to oversight as intention4
 ,on the other hand1 that he did mention
 disputed books is evidence only that he
 not only pledged himself to do so1 but 
actually fulfilled his promise4         
,although much might be said upon this  
point1 therefore1 ,i consider it of so  
little importance that ,i do not intend 
to waste time in minutely discussing it4
 ,if my assertions with regard to the   
silence of ,eusebius likewise include   
the supposition that he proposed to     
mention mere quotations of the          
undisputed books1 they are so far from  
limited to this very subsidiary         
testimony that ,i should have no        
reluctance in waiving it altogether4    
,even if the most distinct quotations of
 this kind had occurred in the lost     
works of the three writers in question1 
they could have proved nothing beyond   
the mere existence of the book quoted1  

at the time that work was written1 but  
would have done nothing to establish its
 authenticity and trustworthiness4 ,in  
the evidential destitution of the       
,gospels1 apologists would thankfully   
have received even such vague           
indications2 indeed there is scarcely   
any other evidence1 but something much  
more definite is required to establish  
the reality of miracles and ,divine     
,revelation4 ,if this point be1 for the 
sake of argument1 set aside1 what is the
 position8 ,we are not entitled to infer
 that there were no quotations from the 
,gospels in the works of ,hegesippus1   
,papias1 and ,dionysius of ,corinth1    
because ,eusebius does not record them2 
but1 on the other hand1 we are still    
less entitled to infer that there were  
any4  ,the only inference which ,i care 
to draw from the silence of ,eusebius is
 precisely that which ,dr4 ,lightfoot   
admits that1 both from his promise and  
practice1 ,i am entitled to deduce3 when
 any ancient writer has something to    

tell about the ,gospels1 any anecdote of
 interest respecting them1 ,eusebius    
will record it4 ,this is the only       
information of the slightest value to   
this work which could be looked for in  
these writers4 ,so far1 therefore1 from 
producing the destructive effect upon   
some of the arguments of ,supernatural  
,religion1 upon which he somewhat       
prematurely congratulates himself1 ,dr4 
,lightfoot's elaborate and learned      
article on the silence of ,eusebius     
supports them in the most conclusive    
manner4      ,before proceeding to speak
 more directly of the three writers     
under     discussion1 it may be well to 
glance a little at the procedure of     
,eusebius1 and note1 for those who care 
to go more closely into the     matter1 
how he fulfils his promise to record    
what the ,fathers have     to tell about
 the ,gospels4 ,i may mention1 in the   
first place1 that     ,eusebius states  
what he himself knows of the composition
 of the     ,gospels and other canonical

 works4 #ej3a ,upon two occasions he    
quotes the account which ,clement of    
,alexandria gives of the     composition
 of ,mark's ,gospel1 and also cites his 
statements     regarding the other      
,gospels4 #ej3b ,in like manner he      
records the     information1 such as it 
is1 which ,irenaeus has to impart about 
the     four ,gospels and other works1  
#ej3c and what ,origen has to say       
concerning them4 #ej3d ,interrogating   
extant works1 we find in fact     that  
,eusebius does not neglect to quote     
anything useful or     interesting      
regarding these books from early        
writers4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot     says that  
,eusebius restricts himself to the      
narrowest limits which     justice to   
his subject will allow1 and he          
illustrates this by the     case of     
,irenaeus4 ,he says3 ,though he         
7,eusebius7 gives the principal         
passage in this author relating to the  
,four ,gospels 7,irenaeus1     ,adv4    
,haer4 iii4 #a1 #a7 he omits to mention 

others which contain     interesting    
statements directly or indirectly       
affecting the     question1 e4g4 that   
,st4 ,john wrote his ,gospel to         
counteract the     errors of ,cerinthus 
and the ,nicolaitans 7,irenaeus1 ,adv4  
,haer4 iii4     #aa1 #a74 #ea3a ,i must 
explain1 however1 that the interesting  
statement omitted1 which is not in the  
context of the part quoted1     is not  
advanced as information derived from any
 authority1 but only     in the course  
of argument1 and there is nothing to    
distinguish it     from mere personal   
opinion1 so that on this ground         
,eusebius may well     have passed it   
over4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot further says3     
,thus too when he     quotes a few lines
 alluding to the unanimous tradition of 
the     ,asiatic ,elders who were       
acquainted with ,st4 ,john1 #ea3b he    
omits     the context1 from which we    
find that this tradition had an         
important     bearing on the            
authenticity of the fourth ,gospel1 for 

it declared     that ,christ's ministry 
extended much beyond a single year1 thus
     confirming the obvious chronology  
of the ,fourth ,gospel against the      
apparent chronology of the ,synoptists4 
#ea3c ,nothing1 however1     could be   
further from the desire or intention of 
,eusebius than to     represent any     
discordance between the ,gospels1 or to 
support the one     at the expense of   
the others4 ,on the contrary1 he enters 
into an     elaborate explanation in    
order to show that there is no          
discrepancy     between them1 affirming1
 and supporting his view by singular    
quotations1 that it was evidently the   
intention of the three     ,synoptists  
only to write the doings of the ,lord   
for one year after     the imprisonment 
of ,john the ,baptist1 and that ,john1  
having the     other ,gospels before    
him1 wrote an account of the period not 
embraced by the other evangelists4 #ea3d
 ,moreover1 the     extraordinary       
assertions of ,irenaeus not only        

contradict the     ,synoptics1 but also 
the ,fourth ,gospel1 and ,eusebius      
certainly could     not have felt much  
inclination to quote such opinions1 even
 although     ,irenaeus seemed to base  
them upon traditions handed down by the 
,presbyters who were acquainted with    
,john4  ,it being1 then1 admitted that  
,eusebius not only pledges himself to   
record when any ancient writer has      
something to tell about the undisputed  
canonical books1 but that1 judged by the
 test of extant writings which we can   
examine1 he actually does so1 let us see
 the conclusions which we are entitled  
to draw in the case of the only three   
writers with regard to whom ,i have     
inferred anything from the silence of   
,eusebius4  ,i need scarcely repeat that
 ,eusebius held ,,hegesippus in very    
high estimation4 ,he refers to him very 
frequently1 and he clearly shows that he
 not only valued1 but was intimately    
acquainted with1 his writings4 ,eusebius
 quotes from the work of ,hegesippus a  

very long account of the martyrdom of   
,james2 #eb3a he refers to ,hegesippus  
as his authority for the statement that 
,simeon was a cousin 7,greek3 anepsios7 
of ,jesus1 ,cleophas his father being1  
according to that author1 the brother of
 ,joseph2 #eb3b he confirms a passage in
 the ,epistle of ,clement by reference  
to ,hegesippus2 #eb3c he quotes from    
,hegesippus a story regarding some      
members of the family of ,jesus1 of the 
race of ,david1 who were brought before 
,domitian2 #eb3d he cites his narrative 
of the martyrdom of ,simeon1 together   
with other matters concerning the early 
,church2 #eb3e in another place he gives
 a laudatory account of ,hegesippus and 
his writings2 #eb3f shortly after he    
refers to the statement of ,hegesippus  
that he was in ,rome until the          
episcopate of ,eleutherus1 #eb3g and    
further speaks in praise of his work1   
mentions his observation on the ,epistle
 of ,clement1 and quotes his remarks    
about the ,church in ,corinth1 the      

succession of ,roman bishops1 the       
general state of the ,church1 the rise  
of heresies1 and other matters4 #eb3h ,i
 mention these numerous references to   
,hegesippus as ,i have noticed them in  
turning over the pages of ,eusebius1 but
 others may very probably have escaped  
me4 ,eusebius fulfils his pledge1 and   
states what disputed works were used by 
,hegesippus and what he said about them1
 and one of these was the ,gospel       
according to the ,hebrews4 ,he does not1
 however1 record a single remark of any 
kind regarding our ,gospels1 and the    
legitimate inference1 and it is the only
 one ,i care to draw1 is1 that          
,hegesippus did not say anything about  
them4 ,i may simply add that1 as that1  
as ,eusebius quotes the account of      
,matthew and ,mark from ,papias1 a man  
of whom he expresses something like     
contempt1 and again refers to him in    
confirmation of the statement of the    
,alexandrian ,clement regarding the     
composition of ,mark's ,gospel1 #ec3a it

 would be against all reason1 as well as
 opposed to his pledge and general      
practice1 to suppose that ,eusebius     
would have omitted to record any        
information given by ,hegesippus1 a     
writer with whom he was so well         
acquainted and of whom he speaks with so
 much respect4      ,i have said that   
,eusebius would more particularly have  
quoted     anything with regard to the  
,fourth ,gospel1 and for those who care 
to     go more closely into the point my
 reasons may be briefly given4 ,no      
one can read ,eusebius attentively      
without noting the peculiar care        
with which he speaks of ,john and his   
writings1 and the substantially         
apologetic tone which he adopts in      
regard to them4 ,apart from any         
doubts expressed regarding the ,gospel  
itself1 the controversy as to     the   
authenticity of the ,apocalypse and     
second and third ,epistles     called by
 his name1 with which ,eusebius was so  
well acquainted1 and     the critical   

dilemma as to the impossibility of the  
same ,john having     written both the  
,gospel and ,apocalypse1 regarding which
 he so fully     quotes the argument of 
,dionysius of ,alexandria1 #ec3b        
evidently     made him peculiarly       
interested in the subject1 and his      
attention to     the fourth ,gospel was 
certainly not diminished by his         
recognition of     the essential        
difference between that work and the    
three ,synoptics4     ,the first        
occasion on which he speaks of ,john1 he
 records the     tradition that he was  
banished to ,patmos during the          
persecution     under ,domitian1 and    
refers to the ,apocalypse4 ,he quotes   
,irenaeus in     support of this        
tradition1 and the composition of the   
work at the     close of ,domitian's    
reign4 #ed3a ,he goes on to speak of the
     persecution under ,domitian1 and   
quotes ,hegesippus as to a command      
given by that ,emperor to slay all the  
posterity of ,david1 #ed3b as     also  

,tertullian's account1 #ed3c winding up 
his extracts from the     historians of 
the time by the statement that1 after   
,nerva succeeded     ,domitian1 and the 
,senate had revoked the cruel decrees of
 the     latter1 the ,apostle ,john     
returned from exile in ,patmos and1     
according to ecclesiastical tradition1  
settled at ,ephesus4 #ed3d ,he          
states that ,john1 the beloved disciple1
 apostle and evangelist1     governed   
the ,churches of ,asia after the death  
of ,domitian and his     return from    
,patmos1 and that he was still living   
when ,trajan     succeeded ,nerva1 and  
for the truth of this he quotes passages
 from     ,irenaeus and ,clement of     
,alexandria4 #ed3e ,he then gives an    
account     of the writings of ,john1   
and whilst asserting that the ,gospel   
must     be universally acknowledged as 
genuine1 he says that it is rightly     
put last in order amongst the four1 of  
the composition of which he     gives an
 elaborate description4 ,it is not      

necessary to quote his     account of   
the fourth ,gospel and of the occasion  
of its composition1     which he states 
to have been ,john's receiving the other
 three     ,gospels1 and1 whilst        
admitting their truth1 perceiving that  
they did     not contain a narrative of 
the earlier history of ,christ4 ,for    
this     reason1 being entreated to do  
so1 he wrote an account of the doings   
of ,jesus before the ,baptist was cast  
into prison4 ,after some very           
extraordinary reasoning1 ,eusebius says 
that no one who carefully     considers 
the points he mentions can think that   
the ,gospels are at     variance with   
each other1 and he conjectures that     
,john probably     omitted the          
genealogies because ,matthew and ,luke  
had given them4     #ed3f ,without      
further anticipating what ,i have to say
 when speaking     of ,papias1 it is    
clear1 ,i think1 that ,eusebius1 being  
aware of1 and     interested in1 the    
peculiar difficulties connected with the

 writings     attributed to ,john1 not  
to put a still stronger case1 and       
quoting     traditions from later and   
consequently less weighty authorities1  
would certainly have recorded with more 
special readiness any     information on
 the subject given by ,hegesippus1 whom 
he so     frequently lays under         
contribution1 had his writings contained
 any4  ,in regard to ,,papias the case  
is still clearer4 ,we find that         
,eusebius quotes his account of the     
composition of ,gospels by ,matthew and 
,mark1 #ee3a although he had already    
given a closely similar narrative       
regarding ,mark from ,clement of        
,alexandria1 and appealed to ,papias in 
confirmation of it4 ,is it either       
possible or permissible to suppose that1
 had ,papias known anything of the other
 two ,gospels1 he would not have        
enquired about them from the ,presbyters
 and recorded their information8 ,and is
 it either possible or permissible to   
suppose that if ,papias had recorded any

 similar information regarding the      
composition of the third and fourth     
,gospels1 ,eusebius would have omitted  
to quote it8 ,certainly not2 and ,dr4   
,lightfoot's article proves it4         
,eusebius had not only pledged himself  
to give such information1 and does so in
 every case which we can test1 but he   
fulfil it by actually quoting what      
,papias had to say about the ,gospels4  
,even if he had been careless1 his very 
reference to the first two ,gospels must
 have reminded him of the claims of the 
rest4 ,there are1 however1 special      
reasons which render it still more      
certain that had ,papias had anything to
 tell about the ,fourth ,gospel1--and if
 there was a ,fourth ,gospel in his     
knowledge he must have had something1 to
 tell about it1--,eusebius would have   
recorded it4 ,the first quotation he    
makes from ,papias is the passage in    
which the ,bishop of ,hierapolis states 
the interest with which he had enquired 
about the words of the ,presbyters1 what

 ,john or ,matthew or what any other of 
the disciples of the ,lord said1 and    
what ,aristion and the ,presbyter ,john1
 disciples of the ,lord1 say4 #ee3b     
,eusebius observes1 and particularly    
points out1 that the name of ,john is   
twice mentioned in the passage1 the     
former1 mentioned with ,peter1 ,james1  
and ,matthew1 and other ,apostles1      
evidently being1 he thinks1 the         
,evangelist1 and the latter being       
clearly distinguished by the designation
 of ,presbyter4 ,eusebius states that   
this proves the truth of the assertion  
that there were two men of the name of  
,john in ,asia1 and that two tombs were 
still shown at ,ephesus bearing the name
 of ,john4 ,eusebius then proceeds to   
argue that probably the second of the   
two ,johns1 if not the first1 was the   
man who saw the ,revelation4 ,what an   
occasion for quoting any information    
bearing at all on the subject from      
,papias1 who had questioned those who   
had been acquainted with both6 ,his     

attention is so pointedly turned to     
,john at the very moment when he makes  
his quotations regarding ,matthew and   
,mark1 that ,i am fully warranted1 both 
by the conclusions of ,dr4 ,lightfoot   
and the peculiar circumstances of the   
case1 in affirming that the silence of  
,eusebius proves that ,papias said      
nothing about either the third or fourth
 ,gospels4  ,i need not go on to discuss
 ,dionysius of ,corinth1 for the same   
reasoning equally applies to his case4  
,i have1 therefore1 only a few more     
words to say on the subject of          
,eusebius4 ,not content with what he    
intended to be destructive criticism1   
,dr4 ,lightfoot valiantly proceeds to   
the constructive and1 as a sober        
deduction from facts1 makes the         
following statement1 which he prints in 
italics3 ,the silence of ,eusebius      
respecting early witnesses to the       
,fourth ,gospel is an evidence in its   
favour4 #ef3a ,now1 interpreted even by 
the rules laid down by ,dr4 ,lightfoot  

himself1 what does this silence really  
mean8 ,it means1 not that the early     
writers about whom he is supposed to be 
silent are witnesses about anything     
connected with the ,fourth ,gospel1 but 
simply that if ,eusebius noticed and did
 not record the mere use of that ,gospel
 by anyone1 he thereby indicates that he
 himself1 in the fourth century1 classed
 it amongst the undisputed books1 the   
mere use of which he does not undertake 
to mention4 ,the value of his opinion at
 so late a date is very small4          
,professor ,lightfoot next makes a      
vehement attack upon me in connection   
with ,,the ,,ignatian ,,epistles1 #eg3a 
which is equally abortive and limited to
 details4 ,i do not intend to complain  
of the spirit in which the article is   
written1 nor of its unfairness4 ,on the 
whole ,i think that readers may safely  
he left to judge of the tone in which a 
controversy is carried on4              
,unfortunately1 however1 the perpetual  
accusation of misstatement brought      

against me in this article1 and based   
upon minute criticism into which few    
care to follow1 is apt to leave the     
impression that it is well-founded1 for 
there is the very natural feeling in    
most right minds that no one would      
recklessly scatter such insinuations4   
,it is this which alone makes such an   
attack dangerous4 ,now in a work like   
this1 dealing with so many details1 it  
must be obvious that it not possible    
altogether to escape errors4 ,a critic  
or opponent is of course entitled to    
point these out1 although1 if he be     
high-minded or even alive to his own    
interests1 ,i scarcely think that he    
will do so in a spirit of unfair        
detraction4 ,but in doing this a writer 
is bound to be accurate1 for if he be   
liberal of such accusations and it can  
be shown that his charges are unfounded1
 they recoil with double force upon     
himself4 ,i propose1 therefore1 as it is
 impossible for me to reply to all such 
attacks1 to follow ,professor ,lightfoot

 and ,dr4 ,westcott1 with some          
minuteness in their discussion of my    
treatment of the ,ignatian ,epistles1   
and once for all to show the grave      
misstatements to which they commit      
themselves4  ,dr4 ,lightfoot does not   
ignore the character of the discussion  
upon which he enters1 but it will be    
seen that his appreciation of its       
difficulty by no means inspires him with
 charitable emotions4 ,he says3 ,the    
,ignatian question is the most          
perplexing which confronts the student  
of earlier ,christian history4 ,the     
literature is voluminous2 the           
considerations involved are very wide1  
very varied1 and very intricate4 ,a     
writer1 therefore1 may well be pardoned 
if he betrays a want of familiarity with
 this subject4 ,but in this case the    
reader naturally expects that the       
opinions at which he has arrived will be
 stated with some diffidence4 #eh3a ,my 
critic objects that ,i express my       
opinions with decision4 ,i shall        

hereafter justify this decision1 but ,i 
would here point out that the very      
reasons which render it difficult for   
,dr4 ,lightfoot to form a final and     
decisive judgment on the question make  
it easy for me4 ,it requires but little 
logical perception to recognize that    
,epistles1 the authenticity of which it 
is so difficult to establish1 cannot    
have much influence as testimony for the
 ,gospels4 ,the statement just quoted1  
however1 is made the base of the attack1
 and war is declared in the following   
terms3      ,the reader is naturally led
 to think that a writer would not use   
such very decided language unless he had
 obtained a thorough mastery     of his 
subject2 and when he finds the notes    
thronged with references     to the most
 recondite sources of information1 he at
 once credits the     author with an    
'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature
 bearing upon     it4 ,it becomes       
important therefore to enquire whether  
the writer     shows that accurate      

acquaintance with the subject1 which    
justifies     us in attaching weight to 
his dicta as distinguished from his     
arguments4 #ei3a  ,this sentence shows  
the scope of the discussion4 ,my dicta1 
however1 play a very subordinate part   
throughout1 and even if no weight be    
attached to them--and ,i have never     
desired that any should be--my argument 
would not be in the least degree        
affected4  ,the first point attacked1   
like most of those subsequently         
assailed1 is one of mere critical       
history4 ,i wrote3 ,the strongest       
internal1 as well as other evidence1    
into which space forbids our going in   
detail1 has led 7#a7 the majority of    
critics to recognize the ,syriac version
 as the most genuine form of the letters
 of ,ignatius extant1 and 7#b7 this is  
admitted by most of those who           
nevertheless deny the authenticity of   
any of the epistles4 #ei3b  ,upon this  
,dr4 ,lightfoot remarks3--      ,no     
statement could be more erroneous as a  

summary of the results     of the       
,ignatian controversy since the         
publication of the ,syriac     epistles 
than this4 #ei3a  ,it will be admitted  
that this is pretty decided language for
 one who is preaching diffidence4 ,when 
we come to details1 however1 ,dr4       
,lightfoot admits3 ,those who maintain  
the genuineness of the ,ignatian        
,epistles in one or other of the two    
forms1 may be said to be almost evenly  
divided on this question of priority4   
,he seems to consider that he           
sufficiently shows this when he mentions
 five or six critics on either side2 but
 even on this modified interpretation of
 my statement its correctness may be    
literally maintained4 ,to the five names
 quoted as recognising the priority of  
the ,syriac ,epistles may be added those
 of ,milman1 ,bhringer1 de ,pressens1   
and ,dr4 ,tregelles1 which immediately  
occur to me4 ,but ,i must ask upon what 
ground he limits my remark to those who 
absolutely admit the genuineness8 ,i    

certainly do not so limit it1 but affirm
 that a majority prefer the three       
,curetonian ,epistles1 and that this    
majority is made up partly of those who1
 denying the authenticity of any of the 
letters1 still consider the ,syriac the 
purest and least adulterated form of the
 ,epistles4 ,this will be evident to    
anyone who reads the context4 ,with     
regard to the latter 7#b7 part of the   
sentence1 ,i will at once say that most 
is a slip of the pen for many1 which ,i 
correct in this edition4 #fj3a ,many of 
those who deny or do not admit the      
authenticity prefer the ,curetonian     
version4 ,the ,tbingen school are not   
unanimous on the point1 and there are   
critics who do not belong to it4 ,bleek1
 for instance1 who does not commit      
himself to belief1 considers the        
priority of the ,curetonian im hchsten  
,grade wahrscheinlich4 ,volkmar1        
,lipsius1 and ,rumpf prefer them4 ,dr4  
,lightfoot says3      ,the case of      
,lipsius is especially instructive1 as  

illustrating this     point4 ,having at 
one time maintained the priority and    
genuineness of     the ,curetonian      
letters1 he has lately1 if ,i rightly   
understand him1     retracted his former
 opinion on both questions alike4 #fj3b 
,dr4 ,lightfoot1 however1 has not1      
rightly understood him4 ,lipsius has    
only withdrawn his opinion that the     
,syriac letters are authentic1 but1     
whilst now asserting that in all their  
forms the ,ignatian ,epistles are       
spurious1 he still maintains the        
priority of the ,curetonian version4 ,he
 first announced this change of view    
emphatically in #ahgc1 when he added3   
,an dem relativ grssern ,alter der      
syrischen ,textgestalt gegenber der     
krzeren griechischen halte ich brigens  
nach wie vor fest4 #fa3a ,in the very   
paper to which ,dr4 ,lightfoot refers1  
,lipsius also again says quite          
distinctly3 ,ich bin noch jetzt         
berzeugt1 dass der ,syrer in zahlreichen
 ,fllen den relativ ursprnglichsten     

,text bewahrt hat 7vgl4 meine ,nachweise
 in ',niedner's ,zeitschr4' ,s4 #ae;ff74
 #fa3b ,with regard to the whole of this
 7#b7 point1 it must be remembered that 
the only matter in question is simply a 
shade of opinion amongst critics who    
deny the authenticity of the ,ignatian  
,epistles in all forms4  ,dr4           
,lightfoot1 however1 goes on to throw   
some light upon this point by analysing 
my general statement of the course of   
opinion on this subject given in an     
earlier passage4 #fa3c ,the light which 
he throws seems to pass through so      
peculiar a medium1 that ,i should be    
much rather tempted to call it darkness4
 ,i beg the reader to favour me with his
 attention to this matter1 for here     
commences a serious attack upon the     
accuracy of my notes and statements1    
which is singularly full of error and   
misrepresentation4 ,the general         
statement referred to and quoted is as  
follows3--      ,these three ,syriac    
epistles have been subjected to the     

severest     scrutiny1 and many of the  
ablest critics have pronounced them to  
be     the only authentic ,epistles of  
,ignatius1 whilst others1 who do not    
admit that even these are genuine       
letters emanating from ,ignatius1       
prefer them to the version of seven     
,greek epistles1 and consider     them  
the most ancient form of the letters    
which we possess47#a7 ,as     early as  
the sixteenth century1 however1 the     
strongest doubts were     expressed     
regarding the authenticity of any of the
 epistles ascribed     to ,ignatius4    
,the ,magdeburg ,centuriators first     
attacked them1 and     ,calvin declared 
7p4 #bfj7 them to be spurious1#a an     
opinion fully     shared by ,chemnitz1  
,dallaeus1 and others2 and similar      
doubts1     more or less definite1 were 
expressed throughout the seventeenth    
century17#b7 and onward to comparatively
 recent times17#c7 although     the     
means of forming a judgment were not    
then so complete as now4     ,that the  

epistles were interpolated there was no 
doubt4 ,fuller     examination and more 
comprehensive knowledge of the subject  
have     confirmed earlier doubts1 and a
 large mass of critics recognise        
that the authenticity of none of these  
epistles can be established1     and    
that they can only be considered later  
and spurious     compositions47#d7 #fb3a
  ,in the first note 7#a7 on p4 #bei ,i 
referred to ,bunsen1 ,bleek1 ,bhringer1 
,cureton1 ,ewald1 ,lipsius1 ,milman1    
,ritschl1 and ,weiss1 and ,dr4          
,lightfoot proceeds to analyse my       
statements as follows3 and ,i at once   
put his explanation and my text in      
parallel columns1 italicising parts of  
both to call more immediate attention to
 the point3            ,,the ,,truth4   
,,dr4 ,,lightfoot',s ,,statement4       
,many of the ablest critics have        
,these references1 it will be pronounced
 them to be the only        observed1   
are given to illustrate authentic       
,epistles of ,ignatius1       more      

immediately1 though perhaps whilst      
others who do not admit       not       
solely1 the statement that that even    
these are genuine letters   writers 'who
 do not admit that emanating from       
,ignatius1 still       even these 7the  
,curetonian prefer them to the version  
of        ,epistles7 are genuine letters
 seven ,greek ,epistles1 and consider   
emanating from ,ignatius1 still them the
 most ancient form of the     prefer    
them to the version of letters which we 
possess4            seven ,greek        
,epistles1 and consider                 
them the most ancient form of the       
letters which we possess4' #fb3b   ,it  
must be evident to anyone who reads the 
context #fb3c that in this sentence ,i  
am stating opinions expressed in favour 
of the ,curetonian ,epistles1 and that  
the note1 which is naturally put at the 
end of that sentence1 must be intended  
to represent this favourable opinion1   
whether of those who absolutely maintain
 the authenticity or merely the relative

 priority4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot quietly      
suppresses1 in his comments1 the main   
statement of the text which the note    
illustrates1 and then throws light upon 
the point by the following remarks3--   
,,the ,,truth4                    ,,dr4 
,,lightfoot',s ,,statement4             
,cureton1 ,bunsen1 ,bhringer1 ,ewald1   
,the reader1 therefore1 will ,milman1   
,ritschl1 and ,weiss         hardly be  
prepared to hear that maintain both the 
priority and        not one of these    
nine writers genuineness of the ,syriac 
,epistles4   condemns the ,ignatian     
letters ,bleek will not commit himself  
to a  as spurious4 ,bleek alone leaves  
distinct recognition of the letters     
leaves the matter in some in any form4  
,of the ,vossian           uncertainty  
while inclining to ,epistles1 he says3  
,aber auch die     ,bunsen's view2 the  
other eight ,echtheit dieser ,recension 
ist         distinctly maintain the     
keineswegs sicher4 ,he considers the    
genuineness of the ,curetonian priority 

of the ,curetonian in the    letters4   
#fc3a highest degree probable4          
,lipsius rejects all the ,epistles1   as
 ,i have already said1 but              
maintains the priority of the           
,syriac4                                
,dr4 ,lightfoot's statement1 therefore1 
is a total misrepresentation of the     
facts1 and of that mischievous kind     
which does most subtle injury4 ,not one 
reader in twenty would take the trouble 
to investigate1 but would receive from  
such positive assertions an impression  
that my note was totally wrong1 when in 
fact it is literally correct4           
,continuing his analysis1 ,dr4          
,lightfoot fights almost every inch of  
the ground in the very same style4 ,he  
cannot contradict my statement that so  
early as the sixteenth century the      
strongest doubts were expressed         
regarding the authenticity of any of the
 ,epistles ascribed to ,ignatius1 and   
that the ,magdeburg ,centuriators       
attacked them1 and ,calvin declared them

 to be spurious1 #fd3a but ,dr4         
,lightfoot says3 ,the criticisms of     
,calvin more especially refer to those  
passages which were found in the ,long  
,recension alone4 #fd3b ,of course only 
the ,long ,recension was at that time   
known4 ,rivet replies to ,campianus that
 ,calvin's objections were not against  
,ignatius but the ,jesuits who had      
corrupted him4 #fd3c ,this is the usual 
retort theological1 but as ,i have      
quoted the words of ,calvin the reader  
may judge for himself4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot  
then says3      ,the clause which       
follows contains a direct misstatement4 
,chemnitz     did not fully share the   
opinion that they were spurious2 on the 
contrary1 he quotes them several times  
as authoritative2 but he says     that  
they 'seem to have been altered in many 
places to strengthen     the position of
 the ,papal power1 c4' #fd3d  ,pearson's
 statement here quoted must be received 
with reserve1 for ,chemnitz rather      
speaks sarcastically of those who quote 

these ,epistles as evidence4 ,in        
treating them as ancient documents or   
speaking of parts of them with respect1 
,chemnitz does nothing more than the    
,magdeburg ,centuriators1 but this is a 
very different thing from directly      
ascribing them to ,ignatius himself4    
,the ,epistles in the ,long ,recension  
were before ,chemnitz both in the ,latin
 and ,greek forms4 ,he says of them3 444
 multas habent non contemnendas         
sententias1 praesertim sicut ,graece    
leguntur4 ,admixta vero sunt et alia non
 pauca1 quae profecto non referunt      
gravitatem ,apostolicam4 ,adulteratas   
enim jam esse illas epistolas1 vel inde 
colligitur4 ,he then shows that         
quotations in ancient writers purporting
 to be taken from the ,epistles of      
,ignatius are not found in these extant 
,epistles at all1 and says3 ,de         
,epistolis igitur illis ,ignatii1 quae  
nunc ejus titulo feruntur1 merito       
dubitamus3 transformatae enim videntur  
in multis locis1 ad stabiliendum statum 

regni ,pontificii4 #fe3a ,even when he  
speaks in favour of them he damns them  
with faint praise4 ,the whole of the    
discussion turns upon the word fully1   
and is an instance of the minute        
criticism of my critic1 who evidently is
 not directly acquainted with ,chemnitz4
 ,a shade more or less of doubt or      
certainty in conveying the impression   
received from the words of a writer is  
scarcely worth much indignation4  ,dr4  
,lightfoot makes a very detailed attack 
upon my next two notes1 and here again  
,i must closely follow him4 ,my note    
7#b7 p4 #bfj reads as follows3      7#b7
 ,by ,bochartus1 ,aubertin1 ,blondel1   
,basnage1 ,casaubon1 ,cocus1            
,humfrey1 ,rivetus1 ,salmasius1 ,socinus
 7,faustus71 ,parker1 ,petau1 c4     c42
 cf4 ,jacobson1 ',patr4 ,apost4' i4 p4  
xxv2 ,cureton1 ',vindiciae              
,ignatianae1' #ahdf1 appendix4  ,upon   
this ,dr4 ,lightfoot makes the following
 preliminary remarks3--      ,but the   
most important point of all is the      

purpose for which they     are quoted4  
',similar doubts' could only1 ,i think1 
be interpreted     from the context as  
doubts 'regarding the authenticity of   
any of the     ,epistles ascribed to    
,ignatius4' #fe3b  ,as ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 
in the first sentence just quoted1      
recognises what is the most important   
point of all1 it is a pity that1        
throughout the whole of the subsequent  
analysis of the references in question1 
he persistently ignores my very careful 
definition of the purpose for which they
 are quoted4 ,it is difficult1 without  
entering into minute classifications1   
accurately to represent in a few words  
the opinions of a great number of       
writers1 and briefly convey a fair idea 
of the course of critical judgment4     
,desirous1 therefore1 of embracing a    
large class--for both this note and the 
next1 with mere difference of epoch1    
illustrate the same statement in the    
text--and not to overstate the case on  
my own side1 ,i used what seemed to me a

 very moderate phrase1 decreasing the   
force of the opinion of those who       
positively rejected the ,epistles1 and  
not unfairly representing the hesitation
 of those who did not fully accept them4
 ,i said1 then1 in guarded terms--and ,i
 italicise the part which ,dr4          
,lightfoot chooses to suppress--that    
similar doubts1 more or less definite1  
were expressed by the writers referred  
to4  ,dr4 ,lightfoot admits that        
,bochart directly condemns one ,epistle1
 and would probably have condemned the  
rest also2 that ,aubertin1 ,blondel1    
,basnage1 ,r4 ,parker1 and ,saumaise    
actually rejected all2 and that ,cook   
pronounces them either supposititious or
 shamefully corrupted4 ,so far1         
therefore1 there can be no dispute4 ,i  
will now take the rest in succession4   
,dr4 ,lightfoot says that ,humfrey      
considers that they have been           
interpolated and mutilated1 but he      
believes them genuine in the main4 ,dr4 
,lightfoot has so completely warped the 

statement in the text1 that he seems to 
demand nothing short of a total         
condemnation of the ,epistles in the    
note1 but had ,i intended to say that   
,humfrey and all of these writers       
definitely rejected the whole of the    
,epistles ,i should not have limited    
myself to merely saying that they       
expressed doubts more or less definite1 
which ,humfrey does4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot    
says that ,socinus denounces corruptions
 and anachronisms1 but so far as ,i can 
see does not question a nucleus of      
genuine matter4 ,his very denunciations1
 however1 are certainly the expression  
of doubts1 more or less definite4       
,casaubon1 far from rejecting them      
altogether1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot says1       
promises to defend the antiquity of some
 of the ,epistles with new arguments4   
,but ,i have never affirmed that he     
rejected them altogether4 ,casaubon died
 before he fulfilled the promise        
referred to1 so that we cannot determine
 what arguments he might have used4 ,i  

must point out1 however1 that the       
antiquity does not necessarily involve  
the authenticity of a document4 ,with   
regard to ,rivet the case is different4 
,i had overlooked the fact that in a    
subsequent edition of the work referred 
to1 after receiving ,archbishop ,usher's
 edition on of the ,short ,recension1 he
 had given his adhesion to that form of 
the ,epistles4 #fg3a ,this fact is also 
mentioned by ,pearson1 and ,i ought to  
have observed it4 #fg3b ,petau1 the last
 of the writers referred to1 says3      
,equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius 
varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis 
mutatas1 ac depravatas fuisse3 tum      
aliquas esse supposititias3 verum nullas
 omnino ab ,ignatio ,epistolas esse     
scriptas1 id vero nimium temere         
affirmari sentio4 ,he then goes on to   
mention the recent publication of the   
,vossian ,epistles and the version of   
,usher1 and the learned ,jesuit ,father 
has no more decided opinion to express  
than3 ut haec prudens1 ac justa suspicio

 sit1 illas esse genuinas ,ignatii      
epistolas1 quas antiquorum consensus    
illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac  
approbatas reliquit4 #fg3c  ,the next   
note 7#c71 p4 #bfj1 was only separated  
from the preceding for convenience of   
reference1 and ,dr4 ,lightfoot quotes   
and comments upon it as follows3--      
,the next note 7#c71 p4 #bfj1 is as     
follows3--',wotton1 ,praef4     ,clem4  
,r4 ,epp4 #agah2 ,j4 ,owen1 ,enquiry    
into ,original ,nature1 c41     ,evang4 
,church1 ,works1 ed4 ,russel1 #ahbf1    
vol4 xx4 p4 #adg2 ,oudin1     ,comm4 de 
,script4 ,eccles4 c4 #agbb1 p4 #hh2     
,lampe1 ,comm4 analyt4 ex     ,evang4   
,joan4 #agbd1 i4 p4 #ahd2 ,lardner1     
,credibility1 c41 ,works1     ii4 p4 #fh
 f42 ,beausobre1 ,hist4 ,crit4 de       
,maniche1 c4 #agcd1 i4     p4 #cgh1 note
 #c2 ,ernesti1 ,n4 ,theol4 ,biblioth4   
#agfa1 ii4 p4 #dhi2     ,mosheim1 ,de   
,rebus ,christ4 p4 #aei f42 ,weismann1  
,introd4 in     ,memorab4 ,eccles4      
#agde1 i4 p4 #acg2 ,heumann1 ,conspect4 

,reipub4 ,lit4     #agfc1 p4 #dib2      
,schroeckh1 ,chr4 ,kirchengesch4 #agge1 
ii4 p4 #cda2     ,griesbach1 ,opuscula  
,academ4 #ahbd1 i4 p4 #bf2 ,rosenmller1 
,hist4     ,interpr4 ,libr4 ,sacr4 in   
,eccles4 #agie1 i4 p4 #aaf2 ,semler1    
,paraphr4     in ,epist ,,ii4 ,petri4   
#aghd1 ,praef42 ,kestner1 ,comm4 de     
,eusebii ,h4,e4     condit4 #ahaf1 p4   
#fc2 ,henke1 ,allg4 ,gesch4 chr4        
,kirche1 #ahah1 i4     p4 #if2 ,neander1
 ,k4,g4 #ahdc1 ii4 p4 #aadj cf4 i4 p4   
#cbg1 ,anm4 #aa2                        
,baumgarten-,crusius1 ,lehrb4 chr4      
,dogmengesch4 #ahcb1 p4 #hc2 cf4        
,comp4 chr4 ,dogmengesch4 #ahdj1 p4 #gi2
 ,niedner1 ,gesch4 chr4 ,k4     p4 #aif2
 ,thiersch1 ,die ,k4 im ap4 ,zeit4 p4   
#cbb2 ,hagenbach1 ,k4,g4 i4     p4 #aae 
f42 cf4 ,cureton1 ,vind4 ,ign4 ,append42
 ,ziegler1 ,versuch     eine prag4      
,gesch4 d4 kirchl4 ,verfassungsformen1  
u4s4w4 #agih1 p4 #af2     ,j4,e4,c4     
,schmidt1 ,versuch b4 d4 gedopp4        
,recens4 d4 ,br4 ,s4 ,ignat41     in    

,henke's ,mag4 f4 ,rel4 ,phil4 u4s4w4   
#agie2 cf4 ,biblioth4 f4     ,krit4     
u4s4w41 ,n4,t4 i4 p #dfc ff4 ,urspr4    
kath4 ,kirche1 ,,ii4 i4     p4 #a f42   
,handbuch ,chr4 ,k4,g4 i4 p4 #bjj4'     
,the brackets are not the author's1 but 
my own4      ,this is doubtless one of  
those exhibitions of learning which have
     made such a deep impression on the 
reviewers4 ,certainly1 as it     stands1
 this note suggests a thorough          
acquaintance with all the     by-paths  
of the ,ignatian literature1 and seems  
to represent the     gleanings of many  
years' reading4 ,it is important to     
observe1     however1 that every one of 
these references1 except those which ,i 
have included in brackets1 is given in  
the appendix to ,cureton's              
',vindiciae ,ignatianae1' where the     
passages are quoted in full4 ,thus      
two-thirds of this elaborate note might 
have been compiled in ten     minutes4  
,our author has here and there          
transposed the order of the             

quotations1 and confused it by so doing1
 for it is chronological in             
,cureton4 ,but what purpose was served  
by thus importing into his     notes a  
mass of borrowed and unsorted           
references8 ,and1 if he thought     fit 
to do so1 why was the key-reference to  
,cureton buried among the     rest1 so  
that it stands in immediate connection  
with some additional     references on  
which it has no bearing8 #fh3a  ,i do   
not see any special virtue in the amount
 of time which might suffice1 under some
 circumstances1 to compile a note1      
although it is here advanced as an      
important point to observe1 but ,i call 
attention to the unfair spirit in which 
,dr4 ,lightfoot's criticisms are made4  
,i ask every just-minded reader to      
consider what right any critic has to   
insinuate1 if not directly to say1 that1
 because some of the references in a    
note are also given by ,cureton1 ,i     
simply took them from him1 and thus     
imported into my notes a mass of        

borrowed and unsorted references1 and   
further to insinuate that ,i here and   
there transposed the order apparently to
 conceal the source8 ,this is a kind of 
criticism which ,i very gladly          
relinquish entirely to my high-minded   
and reverend opponent4 ,now1 as full    
quotations are given in ,cureton's      
appendix1 ,i should have been perfectly 
entitled to take references from it1 had
 ,i pleased1 and for the convenience of 
many readers ,i distinctly indicate     
,cureton's work1 in the note1 as a      
source to be compared4 ,the fact is1    
however1 that ,i did not take the       
references from ,cureton1 but in every  
case derived them from the works        
themselves1 and if the note seems to    
represent the gleanings of many years'  
reading1 it certainly does not          
misrepresent the fact1 for ,i took the  
trouble to make myself acquainted with  
the by-paths of ,ignatian literature4   
,now in analysing the references in this
 note it must be borne in mind that they

 illustrate the statement that doubts1  
more or less definite1 continued to be  
expressed regarding the ,ignatian       
,epistles4 ,i am much obliged to ,dr4   
,lightfoot for drawing my attention to  
,wotton4 ,his name is the first in the  
note1 and it unfortunately was the last 
in a list on another point in my        
note-book1 immediately preceding this   
one1 and was by mistake included in it4 
,i also frankly give up ,weismann1 whose
 doubts ,i find ,i had exaggerated1 and 
proceed to examine ,dr4 ,lightfoot's    
further statements4 ,he says that       
,thiersch uses the ,curetonian as       
genuine1 and that his only doubt is     
whether he ought not to accept the      
,vossian4 ,thiersch1 however1 admits    
that he cannot quote either the seven or
 the three ,epistles as genuine4 ,he    
says distinctly3 ,these three ,syriac   
,epistles lie under the suspicion that  
they are not an older text1 but merely  
an epitome of the seven1 for the other  
notes found in the same ,,ms4 seem to be

 excerpts4 ,but on the other hand1 the  
doubts regarding the genuineness of the 
seven ,epistles1 in the form in which   
they are known since ,usher's time1 are 
not yet entirely removed4 ,for no ,,ms4 
has yet been found which contains only  
the seven ,epistles attested by         
,eusebius1 a ,,ms4 such as lay before   
,eusebius4 #gj3a ,thiersch1 therefore1  
does express doubts1 more or less       
definite4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot then          
continues3 ,of the rest a considerable  
number1 as1 for instance1 ,lardner1     
,beausobre1 ,schroeckh1 ,griesbach1     
,kestner1 ,neander1 and                 
,baumgarten-,crusius1 with different    
degrees of certainty or uncertainty1    
pronounce themselves in favour of a     
genuine nucleus4 #gj3b ,the words which 
,i have italicised are a mere paraphrase
 of my words descriptive of the doubts  
entertained4 ,i must point out that a   
leaning towards belief in a genuine     
nucleus on the part of some of these    
writers1 by no means excludes the       

expression of doubts1 more or less      
definite1 which is all ,i quote them    
for4 ,i will take each name in order4   
,lardner says3 ,but whether the smaller 
7,vossian ,epistles7 themselves     are 
the genuine writings of ,ignatius1      
bishop of ,antioch1 is a     question   
that has been much disputed1 and has    
employed the pens     of the ablest     
critics4 ,and whatever positiveness some
 may have     shown on either side1 ,i  
must own ,i have found it a very        
difficult     question4 ,the opinion    
which he expresses finally is merely3   
it appears to me probable1 that they are
 for the main part     the genuine      
epistles of ,ignatius4  ,beausobre says3
 ,je ne veux1 ni dfendre1 ni combattre  
l'authenticit     des ,lettres de ,st4  
,ignace4 ,si elles ne sont pas          
vritables1 elles     ne laissent pas    
d'tre fort anciennes2 et l'opinion1 qui 
me paroit     la plus raisonnable1 est  
que les plus pures ont t interpoles4    
,schroeckh says that along with the     

favourable considerations for     the   
shorter 7,vossian7 ,epistles1 many      
doubts arise which make them            
suspicious4 ,he proceeds to point out   
many grave difficulties1 and            
anachronisms which cast doubt both on   
individual epistles and upon     the    
whole1 and he remarks that a very common
 way of evading these     and other     
difficulties is to affirm that all the  
passages which     cannot be reconciled 
with the mode of thought of ,ignatius   
are     interpolations of a later time4 
,he concludes with the pertinent        
observation3 ,however probable this is1 
it nevertheless remains as     difficult
 to prove which are the interpolated    
passages4 ,in fact it     would be      
difficult to point out any writer who   
more thoroughly     doubts1 without     
definitely rejecting1 all the ,epistles4
  ,griesbach and ,kestner both express  
doubts more or less definite1     but to
 make sufficient extracts to illustrate 
this would occupy     too much space4   

,neander4--,dr4 ,lightfoot has been     
misled by the short extract from     the
 ,english translation of the first      
edition of ,neander's ,history     given
 by ,cureton in his ,appendix1 has not  
attended to the brief     ,german       
quotation from the second edition1 and  
has not examined the     original at    
all1 or he would have seen that1 so far 
from pronouncing     in favour of a     
genuine nucleus1 ,neander might well    
have been     classed by me amongst     
those who distinctly reject the         
,ignatian     ,epistles1 instead of     
being moderately quoted amongst those   
who     merely express doubt4 ,neander  
says3 ,as the account of the martyrdom  
of ,ignatius is very suspicious1 so also
 the ,epistles which suppose     the    
correctness of this suspicious legend do
 not bear throughout the     impress of 
a distinct individuality1 and of a man  
of that time who     is addressing his  
last words to the communities4 ,a       
hierarchical     purpose is not to be   

mistaken4 ,in an earlier part of the    
work he     still more emphatically says
 that1 in the so-called ,ignatian       
,epistles1 he recognises a decided      
design 7,absichtlichkeit71 and     then 
he continues3 ,as the tradition         
regarding the journey of     ,ignatius  
to ,rome1 there to be cast to the wild  
beasts1 seems to me     for the         
above-mentioned reasons very suspicious1
 his ,epistles1 which     presuppose the
 truth of this tradition1 can no longer 
inspire me     with faith in their      
authenticity4 #gb3a ,he goes on to state
     additional grounds for disbelief4  
,baumgarten-,crusius stated in one      
place1 in regard to the seven           
,epistles1 that it is no longer possible
 to ascertain how much of the     extant
 may have formed part of the original   
,epistles1 and in a note     he excepts 
only the passages quoted by the         
,fathers4 ,he seems to     agree with   
,semler and others that the two         
,recensions are probably     the result 

of manipulations of the original1 the   
shorter form being     more in          
ecclesiastical1 the longer in dogmatic1 
interest4 ,some years     later he      
remarked that enquiries into the        
,epistles1 although not yet             
concluded1 had rather tended towards the
 earlier view that the     ,shorter     
,recension was more original than the   
,long1 but that even the     shorter may
 have suffered1 if not from             
manipulations     7,ueberarbeitungen71  
from interpolations4 ,this very cautious
     statement1 it will be observed1 is 
wholly relative1 and does not in     the
 least modify the previous conclusion   
that the original material     of the   
letters cannot be ascertained4  ,dr4    
,lightfoot's objections regarding these 
seven writers are thoroughly unfounded1 
and in most cases glaringly erroneous4  
,he proceeds to the next note 7#d7 with 
the same unhesitating vigour1 and       
characterises it as equally unfortunate4
 ,wherever it has been possible1 ,dr4   

,lightfoot has succeeded in             
misrepresenting the purpose of my notes1
 although he has recognised how         
important it is to ascertain this       
correctly1 and in this instance he has  
done so again4 ,i will put my text and  
his explanation1 upon the basis of which
 he analyses the note1 in juxtaposition1
 italicising part of my own statement   
which he altogether disregards3--       
,,dr4 ,,lightfoot4                      
,further examination and more           
,references to twenty authorities       
comprehensive knowledge of the       are
 then given1 as belonging to subject    
have confirmed earlier       the 'large 
mass of critics' who doubts1 and a large
 mass of critics  recognise that the    
,ignatian recognise that the            
authenticity of  ,epistles 'can only be 
considered none of these ,epistles can  
be      later and spurious              
compositions4' established1 and that    
they can      #gc3a only be considered  
later and         spurious compositions4

                ,there are here1 in     
order to embrace a number of references1
 two approximate states of opinion      
represented3 the first1 which leaves the
 ,epistles in permanent doubt1 as       
sufficient evidence is not forthcoming  
to establish their authenticity2 and the
 second1 which positively pronounces    
them to be spurious4 ,out of the twenty 
authorities referred to1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot
 objects to six as contradictory or not 
confirming what he states to be the     
purpose of the note4 ,he seems to       
consider that a reservation for the     
possibility of a genuine substratum     
which cannot be defined invalidates my  
reference4 ,i maintain1 however1 that it
 does not4 ,it is quite possible to     
consider that the authenticity of the   
extant letters cannot be established    
without denying that there may have been
 some original nucleus upon which these 
actual documents may have been based4 ,i
 will analyse the six references4       
,bleek4--,dr4 ,lightfoot says3 ,of these

 ,bleek 7already cited in a     previous
 note7 expresses no definite opinion4   
,dr4 ,lightfoot omits to mention that ,i
 do not refer to ,bleek     directly1   
but by ,cf4 merely request consideration
 of his opinions4     ,i have already   
partly stated ,bleek's view4 ,after     
pointing out some     difficulties1 he  
says generally3 ,it comes to this1 that 
the origin     of the ,ignatian         
,epistles themselves is still very      
doubtful4 ,he     refuses to make use of
 a passage because it is only found in  
the     ,long ,recension1 and another   
which occurs in the ,shorter ,recension 
he     does not consider evidence1      
because1 first1 he says1 ,the           
authenticity of this ,recension also is 
by no means certain1 and1     next1 the 
,cureton ,epistles discredit the others4
 ,whether this     ,recension 7the      
,curetonian7 is more original than the  
shorter ,greek     is certainly not     
altogether certain1 but 444 in the      
highest degree     probable4 ,in another

 place he refuses to make use of        
reminiscences     in the ,ignatian      
,epistles1 because it is still very     
doubtful how     the case stands as     
regards the authenticity and integrity  
of these     ,ignatian ,epistles        
themselves1 in the different ,recensions
 in which     we possess them4 #ge3a ,in
 fact he did not consider that their    
authenticity could be established4 ,i do
 not1 however1 include him     here at  
all4  ,gfrrer4--,dr4 ,lightfoot1 again1 
omits to state that ,i do not cite      
this writer like the others1 but by a   
,cf4 merely suggest a     reference to  
his remarks4  ,harless1 according to    
,dr4 ,lightfoot1 avows that he must     
'decidedly     reject with the most     
considerable critics of older and more  
recent times' the opinion maintained by 
certain persons that     the ,epistles  
are 'altogether spurious1' and proceeds 
to treat a     passage as genuine       
because it stands in the ,vossian       
letters as well     as in the ,long     

,recension4      ,this is a mistake4    
,harless quotes a passage in connection 
with     ,paul's ,epistle to the        
,ephesians with the distinct remark3 ,in
 this     case the disadvantage of the  
uncertainty regarding the ,recensions is
     in part removed through the        
circumstance that both ,recensions have 
the passage4 ,he recognises that the    
completeness of the proof that          
ecclesiastical tradition goes back      
beyond the time of ,marcion is          
somewhat wanting from the uncertainty   
regarding the text of     ,ignatius4 ,he
 did not1 in fact1 venture to consider  
the ,ignatian     ,epistles evidence    
even for the first half of the second   
century4  ,schliemann1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot  
states1 says that 'the external         
testimonies     oblige him to recognise 
a genuine substratum1' though he is not 
satisfied with either existing          
recension4      ,now what ,schliemann   
says is this3 ,certainly neither the    
,shorter and     still less the ,longer 

,recension in which we possess these    
,epistles     can lay claim to          
authenticity4 ,only if we must1         
nevertheless1     without doubt suppose 
a genuine substratum1 c4 ,in a note he  
adds3     ,the external testimonies     
oblige me to recognise a genuine        
substratum--,polycarp already speaks of 
the same in ,ch4 xiii4 of his           
,epistle4 ,but that in their present    
form they do not proceed from           
,ignatius the contents sufficiently     
show4  ,hase1 according to ,dr4         
,lightfoot1 commits himself to no       
opinion4      ,if he does not           
deliberately and directly do so1 he     
indicates what     that opinion is with 
sufficient clearness4 ,the ,long        
,recension1 he     says1 bears the marks
 of later manipulation1 and excites     
suspicion     of an invention in favour 
of ,episcopacy1 and the shorter text is 
not     fully attested either4 ,the     
,curetonian ,epistles with the shortest 
and     least hierarchical text give the

 impression of an epitome4 ,but even    
if no authentic kernel lay at the basis 
of these ,epistles1 yet they     would  
be a significant document at latest out 
of the middle of the     second century4
 ,these last words are a clear admission
 of his     opinion that the            
authenticity cannot be established4     
,lechler candidly confesses that he     
commenced with a prejudice in     favour
 of the authenticity of the ,epistles in
 the ,shorter ,recension1     but on    
reading them through1 he says that an   
impression unfavourable     to their    
authenticity was produced upon him which
 he had not been     able to shake off4 
,he proceeds to point out their internal
     improbability1 and other           
difficulties connected with the supposed
     journey1 which make it still more  
improbable that ,ignatius himself       
can really have written these ,epistles 
in this situation4 ,lechler     does not
 consider that the ,curetonian ,epistles
 strengthen the case2     and although  

he admits that he cannot congratulate   
himself on the     possession of        
certainty and cheerfulness of conviction
 of the     inauthenticity of the       
,ignatian ,epistles1 he at least very   
clearly     justifies the affirmation   
that the authenticity cannot be         
established4  ,now what has been the    
result of this minute and prejudiced    
attack upon my notes8 ,out of nearly    
seventy critics and writers in          
connection with what is admitted to be  
one of the most intricate questions of  
,christian literature1 it appears       
that--much to my regret--,i have        
inserted one name totally by accident1  
overlooked that the doubts of another   
had been removed by the subsequent      
publication of the ,short ,recension and
 consequently erroneously classed him1  
and ,i withdraw a third whose doubts ,i 
consider that ,i have overrated4        
,mistakes to this extent in dealing with
 such a mass of references1 or a        
difference of a shade more or less in   

the representation of critical opinions1
 not always clearly expressed1 may1 ,i  
hope1 be excusable1 and ,i can truly say
 that ,i am only too glad to correct    
such errors4 ,on the other hand1 a      
critic who attacks such references1 in  
such a tone1 and with such wholesale    
accusations of misstatement and         
misrepresentation1 was bound to be      
accurate1 and ,i have shown that ,dr4   
,lightfoot is not only inaccurate in    
matters of fact1 but unfair in his      
statements of my purpose4 ,i am happy1  
however1 to be able to make use of his  
own words and say3 ,i may perhaps have  
fallen into some errors of detail1      
though ,i have endeavoured to avoid     
them1 but the main conclusions are1 ,i  
believe1 irrefragable4 #gh3a  ,there are
 further misstatements made by ,dr4     
,lightfoot to which ,i must briefly     
refer before turning to other matters4  
,he says1 with unhesitating boldness3   
,one highly important omission is       
significant4 ,there is no mention1      

from first to last1 of the ,armenian    
version4 ,now it happens that     this  
version 7so far as regards the          
documentary evidence7 has been     felt 
to be the key to the position1 and      
around it the battle has     raged      
fiercely since its publication4 ,one who
 7like our author7     maintains the    
priority of the ,curetonian letters1 was
 especially     bound to give it some   
consideration1 for it furnishes the most
     formidable argument to his         
opponents4 ,this version was given to   
the     world by ,petermann in #ahdi1   
the same year in which ,cureton's later 
work1 the ,corpus ,ignatianum1 appeared1
 and therefore was unknown     to him4  
,its bearing occupies a more or less    
prominent place in all1     or nearly   
all1 the writers who have specially     
discussed the ,ignatian     question    
during the last quarter of a century4   
,this is true of     ,lipsius and ,weiss
 and ,hilgenfeld and ,uhlhorn1 whom he  
cites1 not     less than of ,merx and   

,denzinger and ,zahn1 whom he neglects  
to cite4     #gh3b  ,now first as       
regards the facts4 ,i do not maintain   
the priority of the ,curetonian         
,epistles in this book myself2 indeed ,i
 express no personal opinion whatever   
regarding them which is not contained in
 that general declaration of belief1 the
 decision of which excites the wrath of 
my diffident critic1 that the ,epistles 
in no form have any value as evidence   
for an earlier period than the end of   
the second or beginning of the third    
century1 even if they have any value at 
all4 ,i merely represent the opinion of 
others regarding those ,epistles4 ,dr4  
,lightfoot very greatly exaggerates the 
importance attached to the ,armenian    
version1 and ,i call special attention  
to the passages in the above quotation  
which ,i have taken the liberty of      
italicising4 ,i venture to say          
emphatically that1 so far from being    
considered the key of the position1 this
 version has1 with some exceptions1     

played a most subordinate and           
insignificant part in the controversy1  
and as ,dr4 ,lightfoot has expressly    
mentioned certain writers1 ,i will state
 how the case stands with regard to     
them4 ,weiss1 ,lipsius1 ,uhlhorn1 ,merx1
 and ,zahn certainly more or less       
prominently deal with them4 ,denzinger1 
however1 only refers to ,petermann's    
publication1 which appeared while his   
own brochure was passing through the    
press1 in a short note at the end1 and  
in again writing on the ,ignatian       
question1 two years after1 #gi3a he does
 not even allude to the ,armenian       
version4 ,beyond the barest historical  
reference to ,petermann's work1         
,hilgenfeld does not discuss the        
,armenian version at all4 ,so much for  
the writers actually mentioned by ,dr4  
,lightfoot4  ,as for the writers who    
have specially discussed the ,ignatian  
question during the last quarter of a   
century3 ,cureton apparently did not    
think it worth while to add anything    

regarding the ,armenian version of      
,petermann after its appearance2 ,bunsen
 refutes ,petermann's arguments in a few
 pages of his ,hippolytus2 #gi3b ,baur1 
who wrote against ,bunsen and the       
,curetonian letters1 and1 according to  
,dr4 ,lightfoot's representation1 should
 have found this the most formidable    
argument against them1 does not         
anywhere1 subsequent to their           
publication1 even allude to the         
,armenian ,epistles2 ,ewald1 in a note  
of a couple of lines1 #gi3c refers to   
,petermann's ,epistles as identical with
 a post-,eusebian manipulated form of   
the ,epistles which he mentions in a    
sentence in his text2 ,dressel devotes a
 few unfavourable lines to them2 #hj3a  
,hefele #hj3b supports them at somewhat 
greater length2 but ,bleek1 ,volkmar1   
,tischendorf1 ,bhringer1 ,scholten1 and 
others have not thought them worthy of  
special notice2 at any rate none of     
these nor any other writers of any      
weight have1 so far as ,i am aware1     

introduced them into the controversy at 
all4  ,the argument itself did not seem 
to me of sufficient importance to drag  
into a discussion already too long and  
complicated1 and ,i refer the reader to 
,bunsen's reply to it1 from which1      
however1 ,i may quote the following     
lines3      ,but it appears to me       
scarcely serious to say3 there are the  
,seven     ,letters in ,armenian1 and ,i
 maintain1 they prove that ,cureton's   
text     is an incomplete extract1      
because1 ,i think1 ,i have found some   
,syriac     idioms in the ,armenian     
text6 ,well1 if that is not a joke1 it  
simply     proves1 according to ordinary
 logic1 that the ,seven ,letters must   
have once been translated into ,syriac4 
,but how can it prove that the          
,greek original of this supposed ,syriac
 version is the genuine text1     and   
not an interpolated and partially forged
 one8 #hj3c  ,dr4 ,lightfoot blames me  
for omitting to mention this argument1  
on the ground that a discussion which1  

while assuming the priority of the      
,curetonian letters1 ignores this       
version altogether1 has omitted a vital 
problem of which it was bound to give an
 account4 ,now all this is sheer        
misrepresentation4 ,i do not assume the 
priority of the ,curetonian ,epistles1  
and ,i examine all the passages         
contained in the seven ,greek ,epistles 
which have any bearing upon our         
,gospels4  ,passing on to another point1
 ,i say3      ,seven ,epistles have been
 selected out of fifteen extant1 all    
equally purporting to be by ,ignatius1  
simply because only that     number were
 mentioned by ,eusebius4 #ha3a  ,another
 passage is also quoted by ,dr4         
,lightfoot1 which will be found a little
 further on1 where it is taken for      
facility of reference4 ,upon this he    
writes as follows3--      ,this attempt 
to confound the seven ,epistles         
mentioned by ,eusebius     with the     
other confessedly spurious ,epistles1 as
 if they presented     themselves to us 

with the same credentials1 ignores all  
the     important facts bearing on the  
question4 7#a7 ,theodoret1 a century    
after ,eusebius1 betrays no knowledge of
 any other ,epistles1 and     there is  
no distinct trace of the use of the     
confessedly spurious     ,epistles till 
late in the sixth century at the        
earliest4 7#b7 ,the     confessedly     
spurious ,epistles differ widely in     
style from the seven     ,epistles1 and 
betray the same hand which interpolated 
the seven     ,epistles4 ,in other      
words1 they clearly formed part of the  
,long     ,recension in the first       
instance4 7#c7 ,they abound in          
anachronisms     which point to an age  
later than ,eusebius1 as the date of    
their     composition4 #ha3b  ,although 
,i do not really say in the above that  
no other pleas are advanced in favour of
 the seven ,epistles1 ,i contend that1  
reduced to its simplest form1 the       
argument for that special number rests  
mainly1 if not altogether1 upon their   

mention by ,eusebius4 ,the very first   
reason 7#a7 advanced by ,dr4 ,lightfoot 
to refute me is a practical admission of
 the correctness of my statement1 for   
the eight ,epistles are put out of court
 because even ,theodoret1 a century     
after ,eusebius1 does not betray any    
knowledge of them1 but the silence of   
,eusebius1 the earlier witness1 is      
infinitely more important1 and it merely
 receives some increase of significance 
from the silence of ,theodoret4         
,suppose1 however1 that ,eusebius had   
referred to any of them1 how changed    
their position would have been6 ,the    
,epistles referred to would have        
attained the exceptional distinction    
which his mention has conferred upon the
 rest44 ,the fact is1 moreover1 that1   
throughout the controversy1 the two     
divisions of ,epistles are commonly     
designated the prae- and post-,eusebian1
 making him the turning-point of the    
controversy4 ,indeed1 further on1 ,dr4  
,lightfoot himself admits3 ,the         

testimony of ,eusebius first            
differentiates them4 #hb3a ,the argument
 7#b and #c7 that the eight rejected    
,epistles betray anachronisms and       
interpolations1 is no refutation of my  
statement1 for the same accusation is   
brought by the majority of critics      
against the ,vossian ,epistles4  ,the   
fourth and last argument seems more     
directly addressed to a second paragraph
 quoted by ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 to which ,i 
refer above1 and which ,i have reserved 
till now1 as it requires more detailed  
notice4 ,it is this3--      ,it is a    
total mistake to suppose that the seven 
,epistles mentioned     by ,eusebius    
have been transmitted to us in any      
special way4 ,these     ,epistles are   
mixed up in the ,medicean and           
corresponding ancient     ,latin ,,mss4 
with the other eight ,epistles1         
universally pronounced to     be        
spurious1 without distinction of any    
kind1 and all have equal     honour4    
#hb3b  ,i will at once give ,dr4        

,lightfoot's comment on this1 in        
contrast with the statement of a writer 
equally distinguished for learning and  
orthodoxy--,dr4 ,tregelles3--           
,,dr4 ,,lightfoot4                 ,,dr4
 ,,tregelles4                           
7#d7 ,it is not strictly true that  ,it 
is a mistake to think of seven the seven
 ,epistles are mixed up    ,ignatian    
,epistles in ,greek having with the     
confessedly spurious      been          
transmitted to us1 for no ,epistles4 ,in
 the ,greek and ,latin   such seven     
exist1 except through ,,mss41 as also in
 the ,armenian      their having been   
selected by version1 the spurious       
,epistles     editors from the ,medicean
 ,,ms4 come after the others2 and the   
which contains so much that             
circumstance1 combined with the    is   
confessedly spurious2--a fact facts     
already mentioned1 plainly   which some 
who imagine a shows that they were a    
later       diplomatic transmission of  
addition1 borrowed from the ,long       

seven have overlooked4 #hc3b ,recension 
to complete the body     of ,ignatian   
letters4 #hc3a         ,i will further  
quote the words of ,cureton1 for1 as    
,dr4 ,lightfoot advances nothing but    
assertions1 it is well to meet him with 
the testimony of others rather than the 
mere reiteration of my own statement4   
,cureton says3      ,again1 there is    
another circumstance which will         
naturally lead us     to look with some 
suspicion upon the recension of the     
,epistles of     ,st4 ,ignatius1 as     
exhibited in the ,medicean ,,ms41 and in
 the ancient     ,latin version         
corresponding with it1 which is1 that   
the ,epistles     presumed to be the    
genuine production of that holy ,martyr 
are mixed     up with others1 which are 
almost universally allowed to be        
spurious4     ,both in the ,greek and   
,latin ,,mss4 all these are placed upon 
the same     footing1 and no distinction
 is drawn between them2 and the only    
ground which has hitherto been assumed  

for their separation has been     the   
specification of some of them by        
,eusebius and his omission of     any   
mention of the others4 #hc3c      ,the  
external evidence from the testimony of 
manuscripts in favour     of the        
rejected ,greek ,epistles1 with the     
exception of that to the                
,philippians1 is certainly greater than 
that in favour of those which     have  
been received4 ,they are found in all   
the manuscripts1 both     ,greek and    
,latin1 in the same form2 while the     
others exhibit two     distinct and very
 different recensions1 if we except the 
,epistle to     ,polycarp1 in which the 
variations are very few4 ,of these two  
recensions the shorter has been most    
generally received3 the     circumstance
 of its being shorter seems much to have
 influenced its     reception2 and the  
text of the ,medicean ,codex and of the 
two copies     of the corresponding     
,latin version belonging to ,caius      
,college1     ,cambridge1 and ,corpus   

,christi ,college1 ,oxford1 has been    
adopted 444     ,in all these there is  
no distinction whatever drawn between   
the     former and latter ,epistles3 all
 are placed upon the same basis2 and    
there is no ground whatever to conclude 
either that the arranger of     the     
,greek recension or the translator of   
the ,latin version esteemed     one to  
be better or more genuine than another4 
,nor can any prejudice     result to the
 ,epistles to the ,tarsians1 to the     
,antiochians1 and to     ,hero1 from the
 circumstance of their being placed     
after the others     in the collection2 
for they are evidently arranged in      
chronological     order1 and rank after 
the rest as having been written from    
,philippi1     at which place ,ignatius 
is said to have arrived after he had    
despatched the previous ,letters4 ,so   
far1 therefore1 as the evidence     of  
all the existing copies1 ,latin as well 
as ,greek1 of both the     recensions is
 to be considered1 it is certainly in   

favour of the     rejected ,epistles1   
rather than of those which have been    
retained4     #hd3a  ,proceeding from   
counter-statements to actual facts1 ,i  
will very briefly show the order in     
which these ,epistles have been found in
 some of the principal ,,mss4 ,one of   
the earliest published was the ancient  
,latin version of eleven ,epistles      
edited by ,j4 ,faber ,stapulensis in    
#adih1 which was at least quoted in the 
ninth century1 and which in the         
subjoined table ,i shall mark ,a1 #hd3b 
and which also exhibits the order of    
,cod4 ,vat4 #hei1 assigned to the       
eleventh century4 #hd3c ,the next 7,b7  
is a ,greek ,,ms4 edited by ,valentinus 
,pacaeus in #aeeg1 #hd3d and the order  
at the same time represents that of the 
,cod4 ,pal4 #aej4 #hd3e ,the third 7,c7 
is the ancient ,latin translation1      
referred to above1 published by         
,archbishop ,usher4 #hd3f ,the fourth   
7,d7 is the celebrated ,medicean ,,ms4  
assigned to the eleventh century1 and   

published by ,vossius in #afdf4 #hd3g   
,this also represents the order of the  
,cod4 ,casanatensis ,g4,v4 #ad4 #hd3h ,i
 italicise the rejected ,epistles3      
,a4              ,b4              ,c4   
,d4              ,,faber ,,stap4        
,,val4 ,,pacaeus4      ,,usher          
,,vossius4                              
#a4 ,trallians     ,mar4 ,cass4         
,smyrn4           ,smyrn4               
#b4 ,magn4         ,trallians           
,polycarp         ,polycarp             
#c4 ,tarsians    ,magnes4        ,ephes4
           ,ephes4             #d4      
,philip4     ,tarsians     ,magnes4     
,magnes4            #e4 ,philad4        
,philip4       ,philad4                 
,philad4            #f4 ,smyrn4         
,philad4        ,trallians              
,trallians          #g4 ,polycarp       
,smyrn4         ,mar4 ad4 ,ign4  ,mar4  
ad4 ,ign4    #h4 ,antioch4    ,polycarp 
,ign4 ad4 ,mar4  ,ign4 ad4 ,mar4    #i4 
,hero        ,antioch4      ,tarsians   
,tarsians        #aj4 ,ephes4           

,hero         ,antioch4                 
#aa4 ,romans        ,ephes4             
,hero                             #ab4  
,romans         ,mart4 ,ign4            
#ac4                                    
,romans                             ,i  
have given the order in ,,mss4          
containing the ,long ,recension as well 
as the ,vossian1 because1 however much  
some may desire to exclude them1 the    
variety of arrangement is notable1 and  
presents features which have an         
undeniable bearing upon this question4  
,taking the ,vossian ,,ms41 it is       
obvious that1 without any distinction   
whatever between the genuine and the    
spurious1 it contains three of the false
 ,epistles1 and does not contain the    
so-called genuine ,epistle to the       
,romans at all4 ,the ,epistle to the    
,romans1 in fact1 is1 to use ,dr4       
,lightfoot's own expression1 embedded in
 the ,martyrology1 which is as spurious 
as any of the epistles4 ,this           
circumstance alone would justify the    

assertion which ,dr4 ,lightfoot         
contradicts4  ,i must now1 in order     
finally to dispose of this matter of    
notes1 turn for a short time to consider
 objections raised by ,dr4 ,westcott4   
,whilst ,i have to thank him for greater
 courtesy1 ,i regret that ,i must point 
out serious errors into which he has    
fallen in his statements regarding my   
references1 which1 as matters of fact1  
admit of practical test4 ,before        
proceeding to them ,i may make one or   
two general observations4 ,dr4 ,westcott
 says3--      ,i may perhaps express my 
surprise that a writer who is quite     
capable of thinking for himself should  
have considered it worth his     while  
to burden his pages with lists of names 
and writings1     arranged1 for the most
 part1 alphabetically1 which have in    
very many     cases no value whatever   
for a scholar1 while they can only      
oppress     the general reader with a   
vague feeling that all 'profound'       
critics     are on one side4 ,the       

questions to be discussed must be       
decided by     evidence and by argument 
and not by authority4 #hf3a  ,now the   
fact is that hitherto1 in ,england1     
argument and evidence have almost been  
ignored in connection with the great    
question discussed in this work1 and it 
has practically been decided by the     
authority of the ,church1 rendered      
doubly potent by force of habit and     
transmitted reverence4 ,the orthodox    
works usually written on the subject    
have1 to a very great extent1 suppressed
 the objections raised by a mass of     
learned and independent critics1 or     
treated them as insignificant1 and      
worthy of little more than a passing    
word of pious indignation4 ,at the same 
time1 therefore1 that ,i endeavour1 to  
the best of my ability1 to decide these 
questions by evidence and argument1 in  
opposition to mere ecclesiastical       
authority1 ,i refer readers desirous of 
further pursuing the subject to works   
where they may find them discussed4 ,i  

must be permitted to add1 that ,i do not
 consider ,i uselessly burden my pages  
by references to critics who confirm the
 views in the text or discuss them1 for 
it is right that earnest thinkers should
 be told the state of opinion1 and      
recognise that belief is not so easy and
 matter-of-course a thing as they have  
been led to suppose1 or the unanimity   
quite so complete as ,english divines   
have often seemed to represent it4 ,dr4 
,westcott1 however1 omits to state that 
,i as persistently refer to writers who 
oppose1 as to those who favour1 my own  
conclusions4  ,dr4 ,westcott proceeds to
 make the accusation which ,i now desire
 to investigate4 ,he says3      ,writers
 are quoted as holding on independent   
grounds an opinion     which is involved
 in their characteristic assumptions4   
,and more than     this1 the references 
are not unfrequently actually           
misleading4 ,one     example will show  
that ,i do not speak too strongly4 #hg3a
  ,dr4 ,westcott has scrutinised this   

work with great minuteness1 and1 as ,i  
shall presently explain1 he has selected
 his example with evident care4 ,the    
idea of illustrating the vast mass of   
references in these volumes by a single 
instance is somewhat startling but to   
insinuate that a supposed contradiction 
pointed out in one note runs through the
 whole work1 as he does1 if ,i rightly  
understand his subsequent expressions1  
is scarcely worthy of ,dr4 ,westcott1   
although ,i am sure he does not mean to 
be unfair4 ,the example selected is as  
follows3      ',it has been demonstrated
 that ,ignatius was not sent to ,rome at
     all1 but suffered martyrdom in     
,antioch itself on the #bjth ,december1 
,a4,d4 #aae17c7 when he was condemned to
 be cast to wild beasts in the          
amphitheatre1 in consequence of the     
fanatical excitement produced by     the
 earthquake which took place on the     
#acth of that month47#d7     #hg3b      
',the references in support of these    
statements are the following3--         

'7#c7 ,baur1 ,urspr4 d4 ,episc41 ,tb4   
,zeitschr4 f4 ,theol4 #ahch1 ,h4#c1     
p4 #aee1 ,anm42 ,bretschneider1         
,probabilia1 c4 p4 #ahe2 ,bleek1 ,einl4 
,n4,t4 p4 #add2 ,guericke1 ,handbuch1   
,k4,g4 i4 p4 #adh2 ,hagenbach1          
,k4,g4 i4 p4 #aac f42 ,davidson1        
,introd4 ,n4,t4 i4 p4 #ai2 ,mayerhoff1  
,einl4 petr4 ,schr4 p4 #gi2 ,scholten1  
,die lt4 ,zeugnisse1 pp4 #dj1     #ej   
f42 ,volkmar1 ,der ,ursprung1 p4 #eb2   
,handbuch ,einl4 ,apocr4 i4     pp4 #aba
 f41 #acf4      '7#d7 ,volkmar1         
,handbuch ,einl4 ,apocr4 i4 pp4 #aba    
ff41 #acf f42     ,der ,ursprung1 p4 #eb
 ff42 ,baur1 ,ursp4 d4 ,episc4 ,tb4     
,zeitschr4 f4     ,theol4 #ahch1 ,h4 #c1
 p4 #adi f42 ,gesch4 chr4 ,kirche1      
#ahfc1 i4     p4 #ddj1 ,amn4 #a2        
,davidson1 ,introd4 ,n4,t4 i1 p4 #ai2   
,scholten1 ,die     lt4 ,zeugnisse1 p4  
#ea f42 cf4 ,francke1 ,zur ,gesch4      
,trajans u4s4w4     #ahdj1 p4 #bec f42  
,hilgenfeld1 ,die ap4 ,vter1 p1 #bad4'  
,upon this ,dr4 ,westcott remarks3      

,such an array of authorities1 drawn    
from different schools1 cannot     but  
appear overwhelming2 and the fact that  
about half of them are     quoted twice 
over emphasises the implied precision of
 their     testimony as to the two      
points affirmed4 #hh3a  ,dr4 ,westcott  
however1 has either overlooked or       
omitted to state the fact that1 although
 some of the writers are quoted twice1  
the two notes differ in almost every    
particular1 many of the names in note #c
 being absent from note #d1 other names 
being inserted in the latter which do   
not appear in the former1 an alteration 
being in most cases made in the place   
referred to1 and the order in which the 
authorities are placed being            
significantly varied4 ,for instance1 in 
note #c1 the reference to ,volkmar is   
the last1 but it is the first in note   
#d2 whilst a similar transposition of   
order takes place in his works1 and     
alterations are made in the pages4 ,the 
references in note #c1 in fact1 are     

given for the date occurring in the     
course of the sentence1 whilst those in 
note #d1 placed at the end1 are intended
 to support the whole statement which is
 made4 ,i must1 however1 explain an     
omission1 which is pretty obvious1 but  
which ,i regret may have misled ,dr4    
,westcott in regard to note #c1 although
 it does not affect note #d4 ,readers   
are probably aware that there has been1 
amongst other points1 a difference of   
opinion not only as to the place1 but   
also the date of the martyrdom of       
,ignatius4 ,i have in every other case  
carefully stated the question of date1  
and my omission in this instance is1 ,i 
think1 the only exception in the book4  
,the fact is1 that ,i had originally in 
the text the words which ,i now add to  
the note3 ,the martyrdom has been       
variously dated about ,a4,d4 #ajg1 or   
#aae-aaf4 but whether assigning the     
event to ,rome or to ,antioch a majority
 of critics of all shades of opinion    
have adopted the later date4 ,thinking  

it unnecessary1 under the circumstances1
 to burden the text with this1 ,i       
removed it with the design of putting   
the statement at the head of note #c1   
with reference to ,a4,d4 #aae in the    
text1 but unfortunately an interruption 
at the time prevented the completion of 
this intention1 as well as the addition 
of some fuller references to the writers
 quoted1 which had been omitted1 and the
 point1 to my infinite regret1 was      
overlooked4 ,the whole of the           
authorities in note #c1 therefore1 do   
not support the apparent statement of   
martyrdom in ,antioch1 although they all
 confirm the date1 for which ,i really  
referred to them4 ,with this            
explanation1 and marking the omitted    
references #hi3a by placing them within 
brackets1 ,i proceed to analyse the two 
notes in contrast with ,dr4 ,westcott's 
statements4                     ,,note  
#c1 ,,for ,,the ,,date ,a4,d4 #aae-aaf4 
,,dr4 ,,westcott',s ,,statements4       
,,the ,,truth4                          

,baur1 ,urspr4 d4 ,episc41 ,tb4         
,zeitschr4 #ahch1 ,h4#c 7p4 #adi1       
,anm47 ,baur states as the date of      
the ,parthian war1 and of ,trajan's     
visit to ,rome1 during which the        
above order 7the sentence against       
,ignatius7 is said to have been         
given1 ,a4,d4 #aae and not #ajg4        
#a4 ,baur1 ,urspr4 d4 ,episc41 ,tb4     
,ibid4 p4 #aee1 ,anm4 ,zeitschr4 #ahch1 
ii4 #c4 p4 #aee1      ,anm4 ,in this    
note1 which is too      ,after showing  
the extreme long  to quote1 there is    
nothing1  improbability of the          
circumstances so far as ,i see1 in any  
way         under which the letters to  
the bearing upon the history #ij3a      
,smyrnaeans and to ,polycarp are said   
except a passing supposition 'wenn   to 
have been written1 ,baur points 444     
,ignatius im ,j4 #aaf an ihn        out 
the additional difficulty in ,polycarp  
444 schrieb 444'          regard to the 
latter that1 if                         
,polycarp died in ,a4,d4 #afg in his    

#hfth year1 and ,ignatius wrote to him  
as already ,bishop of ,smyrna in ,a4,d4 
#aaf1 he must have become bishop at     
least in his #ceth year1 and            
continued so for upwards of half        
a century4 ,the inference is clear      
that if ,ignatius died so much          
earlier as ,a4,d4 #ajg it involves      
the still greater improbability         
that ,polycarp must have become         
,bishop of ,smyrna at latest in his     
#bfth year1 which is scarcely to be     
maintained1 and the later date is       
thus obviously supported4               
7,ibid4 ,gesch4 christl4 ,kirche1       
i4 p4 #ddj1 ,anm4 #a47                  
,baur supports the assertion that       
,ignatius suffered martyrdom in         
,antioch1 ,a4,d4 #aae4                  
#b4 ,bretschneider1 ,probabilia1 x4     
,the same4 p4 #ahe4 ',pergamus ad       
,ignatium 'qui  circa annum cxvi obiisse
 dicitur4'                              
#c4 ,bleek1 ,einl4 ,n4,t4 p4 #add       
,bleek1 ,einl4 ,n4,t4 p4 #add4 p4 #adb  

ed4 #ahfb '444 ,in den        ,briefen  
des ,ignatius ,bischofes von   ,ignatius
 suffered martyrdom at ,rome            
,antiochien1 der unter ,trajan gegen    
under ,trajan1 ,a4,d4 #aae4 #aae zu ,rom
 als ,mrtyrer starb4'                   
#d4 ,guericke1 ,handb4 ,k4,g4 i4        
,guericke1 ,handbuch ,k4,g4 i4 p4 #adh4 
p4 #adh p4 #agg ed4 #c1 #ahch1 the      
edition which ,i have used4             
,ignatius was sent to ,rome1 under      
',ignatius1 ,bischoff von ,antiochien   
,trajan1 ,a4,d4 #aae1 and was destroyed 
7,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #cf71 welcher   by 
lions in the ,coliseum1 ,a4,d4 #aaf4    
wegen seines standhaften                
,bekenntnisses ,christi unter ,trajan   
#aae nach ,rom gefhrt1 und hier #aaf  im
 ,colosseum von ,lwen zerrissen         
wurde 7vgl4  #bc1 i47' where the   same 
statement is repeated4                  
#e4 ,hagenbach1 ,k4,g4 i4 #aac f4 ,i    
,hagenbach1 ,k4,g4 #ahfi1 p4 #aac4 f4   
have not been able to see the book      
referred to1 but in his ,lectures       

,he 7,ignatius7 may have filled his     
',die christliche ,kirche der drei      
office about #dj years when the ersten  
,jahrhunderte1 #ia3a #ahec    ,emperor1 
in the year #aae 7according 7pp4 #abb   
ff471 ,hagenbach mentions    to others  
still earlier71 came to the difficulty  
which has been felt   ,antioch4 ,it was 
during his war as to the execution at   
,rome1 while   against the ,parthians4  
,hagenbach an execution at ,antioch     
might have   states some of the         
arguments for and been simpler and more 
impressive1    against the martyrdom in 
,antioch1 and then quotes ,gieseler's   
solution1 and the journey to ,rome1 the 
former and passes on with ',wie dem such
     of which he seems to consider more 
sei4'                                   
probable4                               
#f4 ,davidson1 ,introd4 ,n4,t4 i4       
,davidson1 ,introd4 ,n4,t4 i4 p4 #ai4 p4
 #ai4 ',all the ,epistles of            
,ignatius are posterior to ,ignatius    
,the same as opposite4 himself1 who was 

not thrown to the   wild beasts in the  
amphitheatre at   ,these peremptory     
statements are ,rome by command of      
,trajan1 but at    of course based upon 
what is ,antioch on ,december #bj1      
,a4,d4 #aae4    considered satisfactory 
evidence1 ,the ,epistles were written   
after      though it may not be adduced 
here4 #aej ,a4,d4' ,for these peremptory
      statements no authority whatever  
is  adduced4                            
#g4 ,mayerhoff1 ,einl4 petr4 ,schr4     
,mayerhoff1 ,einl4 petr4 ,schr4 p4 #gi4 
'444 ,ignatius1 der           p4 #gi4   
sptestens #aag zu ,rom den              
,mrtyrertod litt 444'                   
,ignatius suffered martyrdom in ,rome   
at latest ,a4,d4 #aag4                  
#h4 ,scholten1 ,die lt4 ,zeugnisse1     
,scholten1 ,die lt4 ,zeugnisse1 p4 #dj1 
mentions #aae as the year of   p4 #dj1  
states ,a4,d4 #aae as the date          
,ignatius' death3 p4 #ej f4 ,the        
of ,ignatius' death4 ,at p4 #ej he      
,ignatian letters are rejected          

repeats this statement1 and gives partly
 'weil sie eine ,mrtyrerreise  his      
support to the view that his des        
,ignatius nach ,rom melden1 deren       
martyrdom took place in ,antioch on     
schon frher erkanntes               the 
#bjth ,december1 ,a4,d4 #aae4           
ungeschichtliches ,wesen durch          
,volkmar's nicht ungegrndete            
,vermuthung um so wahrscheinlicher      
wird4 ,darnach scheint nmlich           
,ignatius nicht zu ,rom auf ,befehl     
des sanftmthigen ,trajans1 sondern   zu 
,antiochia selbst1 in ,folge eines  am  
dreizehnten ,december #aae              
eingetretenen ,erdbebens1 als ,opfer    
eines aberglubischen ,volkswahns am     
zwanzigsten ,december dieses ,jahres    
im ,amphitheater den wilden ,thieren    
zur ,beute berliefert worden zu         
sein4'                                  
#i4 ,volkmar1 ,der ,ursprung1 p4 #eb    
,volkmar1 ,der ,ursprung1 p4 #eb1 p4 #eb
 ff4 #ib3a ,this book ,i      affirms   
the martyrdom at ,antioch1 have not been

 able to consult1 but   #bjth ,december1
 #aae4 from secondary references ,i     
gather   that it repeats the arguments  
given  under the next reference4        
#aj4 ,volkmar1 ,haindb4 ,einl4 ,apocr4  
,ibid4 ,handbuch ,einl4 ,apocr4 pp4 #aba
 f41 #acf4 ',ein ,haupt der      p4 #aba
 f41 affirms the martyrdom ,gemeinde zu 
,antiochia1 ,ignatius1     at ,antioch1 
#bjth ,december1 #aae4 wurde1 whrend    
,trajan dortselbst     berwinterte1 am  
#bj4 ,december den    ,thieren          
vorgeworfen1 in ,folge der    durch das 
,erdbeben vom #ac4 ,december  #aae gegen
 die ,greek3 atheoi        erweckten    
,volkswuth1 ein ,opfer       zugleich   
der ,siegesfeste des         ,parthicus1
 welche die ,judith-        ,erzhlung   
7i4 #af7 andeutet1 ,dio      7c4 #bd f42
 vgl4 c4 #aj7 voraussetzt   444'        
,p4 #acf4 ,the same statement is        
,ibid4 p4 #acf4 ,the same repeated      
briefly4 #ic3a            statement1    
with fuller                             
chronological evidence4  ,it will thus  

be seen that the whole of these         
authorities confirm the later date      
assigned to the martyrdom1 and that     
,baur1 in the note in which ,dr4        
,westcott finds nothing in any way      
bearing upon the history except a       
passing supposition1 really advances a  
weighty argument for it and against the 
earlier date1 and as ,dr4 ,westcott     
considers1 rightly1 that argument should
 decide everything1 ,i am surprised that
 he has not perceived the propriety of  
my referring to arguments as well as    
statements of evidence4  ,to sum up the 
opinions expressed1 ,i may state that   
whilst all the nine writers support the 
later date1 for which purpose they were 
quoted1 three of them 7,bleek1          
,guericke1 and ,mayerhoff7 ascribe the  
martyrdom to ,rome1 one 7,bretschneider7
 mentions no place1 one 7,hagenbach7 is 
doubtful1 but leans to ,antioch1 and the
 other four declare for the martyrdom in
 ,antioch4 ,nothing1 however1 could show
 more conclusively the purpose of note  

#c1 which ,i have explained1 than this  
very contradiction1 and the fact that ,i
 claim for the general statement in the 
text1 regarding the martyrdom in        
,antioch itself in opposition to the    
legend of the journey to and death in   
,rome1 only the authorities in note #d1 
which ,i shall now proceed to analyse in
 contrast with ,dr4 ,westcott's         
statements1 and here ,i beg the favour  
of the reader's attention4              
,,note #d4    ,,dr4 ,,westcott',s       
,,statements4                 ,,the     
,,truth4                                
#a4 ,volkmar3 see above4                
,volkmar1 ,handbuch ,einl4 ,apocr4      
i4 pp4 #aba ff41 #acf f4                
,it will be observed on turning to      
the passage above 7#aj71 to which       
,dr4 ,westcott refers1 that he quotes   
a single sentence containing merely     
a concise statement of facts1 and       
that no indication is given to the      
reader that there is anything beyond    
it4 ,at p4 #acf the same statement      

is repeated briefly4 ,now either        
,dr4 ,westcott1 whilst bringing a most  
serious charge against my work1 based   
upon this one example1 has actually     
not taken the trouble to examine my     
reference to pp4 #aba ff41 #acf f41     
and p4 #ej ff41 to which he would       
have found himself there directed1      
or he has acted towards me with a       
want of fairness which ,i venture to    
say he will be the first to regret1     
when he considers the facts4            
,would it be divined from the words     
opposite1 and the sentence above1       
that ,volkmar enters into an elaborate  
argument1 extending over a dozen        
closely printed pages1 to prove that    
,ignatius was not sent to ,rome at all1 
but suffered martyrdom in ,antioch      
itself on the #bjth ,december1 ,a4,d4   
#aae1                                   
probably as a sacrifice to the          
superstitious fury of the people        
against the ,greek3 atheoi1 excited     
by the earthquake which occurred on     

the thirteenth of that month8 ,i shall  
not here attempt to give even an        
epitome of the reasoning1 as ,i shall   
presently reproduce some of the         
arguments of ,volkmar and others in a   
more condensed and consecutive form4    
,ibid4 ,der ,ursprung1 p4 #eb ff4       
,volkmar repeats the affirmations which 
he had fully argued in the above        
work and elsewhere4                     
#b4 ,baur1 ,ursprung d4 ,episc41        
,baur1 ,urspr4 d4 ,episc41 ,tb4 ,tb4    
,zeitschr4 #ahch1 ii4 ,h4 #c1           
,zeitschr4 #ahch1 ,h4 #c1 p4 #adi f4 p4 
#adi f4                                 
,in this passage ,baur discusses        
,baur enters into a long and minute     
generally the historical                
examination of the historical character 
of the martyrdom1 which  character of   
the martyrdom of he considers1 as a     
whole1 to be    ,ignatius1 and of the   
,ignatian 'doubtful and incredible4' ,to
      ,epistles1 and pronounces the     
whole establish this result he notices  

to be fabulous1 and more especially the 
relation of ,christianity to    the     
representation of his sentence the      
,empire in the time of ,trajan1  and    
martyr-journey to ,rome4 ,he which he   
regards as inconsistent   shows that1   
while isolated cases of with the        
condemnation of ,ignatius2 condemnation 
to death1 under and the improbable      
circumstances   occurred during         
,trajan's reign may of the journey4 ,the
 personal       justify the mere        
tradition that he characteristics1 the  
letters1 the  suffered martyrdom1 there 
is no history of ,ignatius1 are1 in his 
instance recorded in which a opinion1   
all a mere creation of    ,christian was
 condemned to be sent the imagination4  
,the utmost he     to ,rome to be cast  
to the beasts2 allows is that he may    
have         that such a sentence is    
opposed to suffered martyrdom4 7,p4     
#afi47     all historical data of the   
reign of                                
,trajan1 and to all that is known of    

his character and principles2 and       
that the whole of the statements        
regarding the supposed journey          
directly discredit the story4 ,the      
argument is much too long and           
elaborate to reproduce here1 but ,i     
shall presently make use of some        
parts of it4                            
#c4 ,baur1 ,gesch4 chr4 ,kirche1        
,ibid41 ,gesch4 chr4 ,kirche1 #ahfc1    
#ahfc1 i4 p4 #ddj1 ,anm4 #a4            
i4 p4 #ddj1 ,anm4 #a4                   
',die ,verurtheilung ad bestias   ,the  
reality is 'wohl nur' that in und die   
,abfhrung dazu nach ,rom    the year    
#aae1 when ,trajan wintered 444 mag auch
 unter ,trajan nichts   in ,antioch1    
,ignatius suffered zu ungewhnliches     
gewesen sein1    martyrdom in ,antioch  
itself1 as a aber 444 bleibt ie         
,geschichte      sacrifice to popular   
fury seines ,mrtyrerthums auch nach     
consequent on the earthquake of der     
,vertheidigung derselben von    that    
year4 ,the rest was developed ,lipsius  

444 hchst                 out of the    
reference to ,trajan for                
unwahrscheinlich4 ,das ,factische    the
 glorification of martyrdom4 ist wohl   
nur dass ,ignatius im ,j4   #aae1 als   
,trajan in ,antiochien      berwinterte1
 in ,folge des         ,erdbebens in    
diesem ,jahr1 in       ,antiochien      
selbst als ein ,opfer    der ,volkswuth 
zum ,mrtyrer         wurde4'            
#d4 ,davidson3 see above4               
,davidson1 ,introd4 ,n4,t41 p4 #ai4     
,all 7the ,epistles7 are posterior      
to ,ignatius himself1 who was not       
thrown to the wild beasts in the        
amphitheatre at ,rome by command of     
,trajan1 but at ,antioch1 on ,december  
#bjth1 ,a4,d4 #aae4                     
#e4 ,scholten3 see above4               
,scholten1 ,die lt4 ,zeugnisse1         
p4 #ea f4 ,the ,ignatian ,epistles are  
declared to be spurious for various     
reasons1 but partly because they        
mention a martyr-journey of ,ignatius   
to ,rome1 the unhistorical character    

of which1 already earlier recognised    
7see ,baur1 ,urspr4 des ,episc4 #ahch1  
p4 #adg ff41 ,die ,ign4 ,briefe1 #ahdh2 
,schwegler1 ,nachap4 ,zeitalt4 ii4      
p4 #aei ff42 ,hilgenfeld1 ,apost4       
,vter1 p4 #baj ff42 ,rville1            
,le ,lien1 #ahef1 ,nos4 #ah-bb71 is     
made all the more probable by           
,volkmar's not groundless conjecture4   
,according to it ,ignatius is reported  
to have become the prey of wild beasts  
on the #bjth ,december1 #aae1 not in the
                                        
amphitheatre in ,rome by the order of   
the mild ,trajan1 but in ,antioch       
itself1 as the victim of superstitious  
popular fury consequent on an           
earthquake which occurred on the        
#acth ,december of that year4           
#f4 ,francke1 ,zur ,gesch4              
,cf4 ,francke1 ,zur ,gesch4 ,trajan's1  
,trajan's1 #ahdj #ahcg1 p4 #bec f4      
#ahdj4 ,this is a mere comparative ,a   
discussion of the date of the           
reference to establish the important    

beginning of ,trajan's ,parthian        
point of the date of the ,parthian war1 
which he fixes in ,a4,d4 #aae1   war and
 ,trajan's visit to ,antioch4 but he    
decides nothing directly    ,dr4        
,westcott omits the ,cf4 as to the time 
of ,ignatius'        martyrdom4         
#g4 ,hilgenfeld1 ,die ap4 ,vter1        
,hilgenfeld1 ,die ap4 ,vter1 p4 #bad ff4
 p4 #bad pp4 #baj ff4 ,hilgenfeld       
,hilgenfeld strongly supports ,baur's   
points out the objections to the        
argument which is referred to narrative 
in the ,acts of the       above1 and    
while declaring the ,martyrdom1 the     
origin of which he  whole story of      
,ignatius1 and more refers to the period
 between       especially the journey to
 ,rome1 ,eusebius and ,jerome3 setting  
incredible1 he considers the mere aside 
this detailed narrative he   fact that  
,ignatius suffered considers the        
historical character martyrdom the only 
point regarding of the general          
statements in the   which the           

possibility has been made letters4 ,the 
mode of punishment    out4 ,he shows    
#ig3a that the by a provincial governor 
causes    martyrology states the #bjth  
some difficulty3 'bedenklicher1'        
,december as the day of ,ignatius' he   
continues1 'ist jedenfalls der  death1  
and that his remains were andre ,punct1 
die ,versendung nach   buried at        
,antioch1 where they still ,rom4' ,why  
was the punishment not   were in the    
days of ,chrysostom and carried out at  
,antioch8 ,would it   ,jerome4 ,he      
argues from all that is be likely that  
under an ,emperor    known of the reign 
and character of like ,trajan a prisoner
 like        ,trajan1 that such a       
sentence from ,ignatius would be sent to
 ,rome to  the ,emperor himself is quite
 fight in the amphitheatre8 ,the        
unsupported and inconceivable4 ,a       
circumstances of the journey as         
provincial ,governor might have         
described are most improbable4          
condemned him ad bestias1 but in ,the   

account of the persecution     any case 
the transmission to ,rome itself is     
beset by difficulties4   is more        
doubtful4 ,he shows1 ,having set out    
these objections    however1 that the   
whole story is he leaves the question1  
casting    inconsistent with historical 
facts1 doubt 7like ,baur7 upon the whole
   and the circumstances of the history1
 and gives no support to   journey      
incredible4 ,it is the bold affirmation 
of a          impossible to give even a 
sketch of martyrdom 'at ,antioch on the 
#bjth  this argument1 which extends over
 ,december1 ,a4,d4 #aae4'               
five long pages1 but although           
,hilgenfeld does not directly refer     
to the theory of the martyrdom in       
,antioch itself1 his reasoning          
forcibly points to that conclusion1     
and forms part of the converging        
trains of reasoning which result in     
that demonstration which ,i             
assert4 ,i will presently make use      
of some of his arguments4  ,at the close

 of this analysis ,dr4 ,westcott sums up
 the result as follows3      ,in this   
case1 therefore1 again1 ,volkmar alone  
offers any arguments     in support of  
the statement in the text2 and the final
 result of the     references is1 that  
the alleged 'demonstration' is1 at the  
most1     what ,scholten calls 'a not   
groundless conjecture4' #ih3a  ,it is   
scarcely possible to imagine a more     
complete misrepresentation of the fact  
than the assertion that ,volkmar alone  
offers any arguments in support of the  
statement in the text1 and it is        
incomprehensible upon any ordinary      
theory4 ,my mere sketch cannot possibly 
convey an adequate idea of the elaborate
 arguments of ,volkmar1 ,baur1 and      
,hilgenfeld1 but ,i hope to state their 
main features1 a few pages on4 ,with    
regard to ,dr4 ,westcott's remark on the
 alleged 'demonstration1' it must be    
evident that when a writer states       
anything to be demonstrated he expresses
 his own belief4 ,it is impossible to   

secure absolute unanimity of opinion1   
and the only question in such a case is 
whether ,i refer to writers1 in         
connection with the circumstances which 
,i affirm to be demonstrated1 who       
advance arguments and evidence bearing  
upon it4 ,a critic is quite at liberty  
to say that the arguments are           
insufficient1 but he is not at liberty  
to deny that there are any arguments at 
all when the elaborate reasoning of men 
like ,volkmar1 ,baur1 and ,hilgenfeld is
 referred to4 ,therefore1 when he goes  
on to say3      ,it seems quite needless
 to multiply comments on these results4 
,anyone who will candidly consider this 
analysis will1 ,i believe1     agree    
with me in thinking that such a style of
 annotation1 which     runs through the 
whole work1 is justly characterised as  
frivolous     and misleading--#ii3a     
,dr4 ,westcott must excuse my retorting 
that1 not my annotation1 but his own    
criticism of it1 endorsed by ,professor 
,lightfoot1 is frivolous and misleading1

 and ,i venture to hope that this       
analysis1 tedious as it has been1 may   
once for all establish the propriety and
 substantial accuracy of my references4 
,as ,dr4 ,westcott does not advance any 
further arguments of his own in regard  
to the ,ignatian controversy1 ,i may now
 return to ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 and complete
 my reply to his objections2 but ,i must
 do so with extreme brevity1 as ,i have 
already devoted too much space to this  
subject1 and must now come to a close4  
,to the argument that it is impossible  
to suppose that soldiers such as the ten
 leopards described in the ,epistles    
would allow a prisoner1 condemned to    
wild beasts for professing              
,christianity1 deliberately to write    
long epistles at every stage of his     
journey1 promulgating the very doctrines
 for which he was condemned1 as well as 
to hold the freest intercourse with     
deputations from the various ,churches1 
,dr4 ,lightfoot advances arguments1     
derived from ,zahn1 regarding the ,roman

 procedure in cases that are said to be 
known4 ,these cases1 however1 are       
neither analogous1 nor have they the    
force which is assumed4 ,that           
,christians imprisoned for their        
religious belief should receive their   
nourishment1 while in prison1 from      
friends1 is anything but extraordinary1 
and that bribes should secure access to 
them in many cases1 and some mitigation 
of suffering1 is possible4 ,the case of 
,ignatius1 however1 is very different4  
,if the meaning of ,greek3 oi kai       
euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai be     
that1 although receiving bribes1 the ten
 leopards only became more cruel1 the   
very reverse of the leniency and mild   
treatment ascribed to the ,roman        
procedure is described by the writer    
himself as actually taking place1 and   
certainly nothing approaching a parallel
 to the correspondence of               
pseudo-,ignatius can be pointed out in  
any known instance4 ,the case of        
,saturus and ,perpetua1 even if true1 is

 no confirmation1 the circumstances     
being very different2 #ajj3a but in fact
 there is no evidence whatever that the 
extant history was written by either of 
them1 #ajj3b but on the contrary1 ,i    
maintain1 every reason to believe that  
it was not4  ,dr4 ,lightfoot advances   
the instance of ,paul as a case in point
 of a ,christian prisoner treated with  
great consideration1 and who writes     
letters freely1 receives visits from his
 friends1 communicates with ,churches   
and individuals as he desires4 #aja3a   
,it is scarcely possible to imagine two 
cases more dissimilar than those of     
pseudo-,ignatius and ,paul1 as narrated 
in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 although 
doubtless the story of the former has   
been framed upon some of the lines of   
the latter4 ,whilst ,ignatius is        
condemned to be cast to the wild beasts 
as a ,christian1 ,paul is not condemned 
at all1 but stands in the position of a 
,roman citizen1 rescued from infuriated 
,jews 7xxiii4 #bg71 repeatedly declared 

by his judges to have done nothing      
worthy of death or of bonds 7xxv4 #be1  
xxvi4 #ca71 and who might have been set 
at liberty but that he had appealed to  
,caesar 7xxv4 #aa f41 xxvi4 #cb74 ,his  
position was one which secured the      
sympathy of the ,roman soldiers4        
,ignatius fights with beasts from ,syria
 even unto ,rome1 and is cruelly treated
 by his ten leopards1 but ,paul is      
represented as receiving very different 
treatment4 ,felix commands that his own 
people should be allowed to come and    
minister to him 7xxiv4 #bc71 and when   
the voyage is commenced it is said that 
,julius1 who had charge of ,paul1       
treated him courteously1 and1 gave him  
liberty to go to see his friends at     
,sidon 7xxvii4 #c74 ,at ,rome he was    
allowed to live by himself with a single
 soldier to guard him 7xxviii4 #af71 and
 he continued for two years in his own  
hired house 7xxviii4 #bh74 ,these       
circumstances are totally different from
 those under which the ,epistles of     

,ignatius are said to have been written4
  ,but the most powerful testimony1 ,dr4
 ,lightfoot goes on to say1 is derived  
from the representations of a heathen   
writer4 #aja3b ,the case of ,peregrinus1
 to which he refers1 seems to me even   
more unfortunate than that of ,paul4 ,of
 ,peregrinus himself1 historically1 we  
really know little or nothing1 for the  
account of ,lucian is scarcely received 
as serious by anyone4 #ajb3a ,lucian    
narrates that this ,peregrinus ,proteus1
 a cynic philosopher1 having been guilty
 of parricide and other crimes1 found it
 convenient to leave his own country4   
,in the course of his travels he fell in
 with ,christians and learnt their      
doctrines1 and1 according to ,lucian1   
the ,christians soon were mere children 
in his hands1 so that he became in his  
own person prophet1 high-priest1 and    
ruler of a synagogue1 and further they  
spoke of him as a god1 used him as a    
lawgiver1 and elected him their chief   
man4 #ajb3b ,after a time he was put in 

prison for his new faith1 which ,lucian 
says was a real service to him          
afterwards in his impostures4 ,during   
the time he was in prison he is said to 
have received those services from       
,christians which ,dr4 ,lightfoot       
quotes4 ,peregrinus was afterwards set  
at liberty by the ,governor of ,syria1  
who loved philosophy1 #ajb3c and        
travelled about1 living in great comfort
 at the expense of the ,christians1     
until at last they quarrelled in        
consequence1 ,lucian thinks1 of his     
eating some forbidden food4 ,finally1   
,peregrinus ended his career by throwing
 himself into the flames of a funeral   
pile during the ,olympian games4 ,an    
earthquake is said to have taken place  
at the time2 a vulture flew out from the
 pile crying out with a human voice2    
and1 shortly after1 ,peregrinus rose    
again and appeared clothed in white     
raiment1 unhurt by the fire4  ,now this 
writing1 of which ,i have given the     
barest sketch1 is a direct satire upon  

,christians1 or even1 as ,baur affirms1 
a parody of the history of ,jesus4      
#ajb3d ,there are no means of           
ascertaining that any of the events of  
the ,christian career of ,peregrinus    
were true1 but it is obvious that       
,lucian's policy was to exaggerate the  
facility of access to prisoners1 as well
 as the assiduity and attention of the  
,christians to ,peregrinus1 the ease    
with which they were duped being the    
chief point of the satire4  ,there is   
another circumstance which must be      
mentioned4 ,lucian's account of         
,peregrinus is claimed by supporters of 
the ,ignatian ,epistles as evidence for 
them4 #ajc3a ,the singular              
correspondence in this narrative with   
the account of ,ignatius1 combined with 
some striking coincidences of           
expression1 they argue1 show that       
,lucian was acquainted with the         
,ignatian history1 if not with the      
,ignatian letters4 ,these are the words 
of ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 although he guards  

himself1 in referring to this argument1 
by the words if it be true1 and does not
 express his own opinion2 but he goes on
 to say3 ,at all events it is conclusive
 for the matter in hand1 as showing that
 ,christian prisoners were treated in   
the very way described in these         
epistles4 #ajc3b ,on the contrary1 it is
 in no case conclusive of anything4 ,if 
it were true that ,lucian employed1 as  
the basis of his satire1 the ,ignatian  
,epistles and ,martyrology1 it is clear 
that his narrative cannot be used as    
independent testimony for the truth of  
the statements regarding the treatment  
of ,christian prisoners4 ,on the other  
hand1 as this cannot be shown1 his story
 remains a mere satire with very little 
historical value4 ,apart from all this1 
however1 the case of ,peregrinus1 a man 
confined in prison for a short time1    
under a favourable governor1 and not    
pursued with any severity1 is no        
parallel to that of ,ignatius condemned 
ad bestias and1 according to his own    

express statement1 cruelly treated by   
the ten leopards2 and further the       
liberty of pseudo-,ignatius must greatly
 have exceeded all that is said of      
,peregrinus1 if he was able to write    
such epistles1 and hold such free       
intercourse as they represent4  ,i will 
now1 in the briefest manner possible1   
indicate the arguments of the writers   
referred to in the note #ajd3a attacked 
by ,dr4 ,westcott1 in which he cannot   
find any relevancy1 but which1 in my    
opinion1 demonstrate that ,ignatius was 
not sent to ,rome at all1 but suffered  
martyrdom in ,antioch itself4 ,the      
reader who wishes to go minutely into   
the matter must be good enough to       
consult the writers there cited1 and ,i 
will only sketch the case here1 without 
specifically indicating the source of   
each argument4 ,where ,i add any        
particulars ,i will1 when necessary1    
give my authorities4 ,the ,ignatian     
,epistles and martyrologies set forth   
that1 during a general persecution of   

,christians1 in ,syria at least1        
,ignatius was condemned by ,trajan1 when
 he wintered in ,antioch during the     
,parthian ,war1 to be taken to ,rome and
 cast to wild beasts in the             
amphitheatre4 ,instead of being sent to 
,rome by the short sea voyage1 he is    
represented as taken thither by the long
 and incomparably more difficult land   
route4 ,the ten soldiers who guard him  
are described by himself as only        
rendered more cruel by the presents made
 to them to secure kind treatment for   
him1 so that not in the amphitheatre    
only1 but all the way from ,syria to    
,rome1 by night and day1 by sea and     
land1 he fights with beasts4            
,notwithstanding this severity1 the     
martyr freely receives deputations from 
the various ,churches1 who1 far from    
being molested1 are able to have        
constant intercourse with him1 and even 
to accompany him on his journey4 ,he not
 only converses with these freely1 but  
he is represented as writing long       

epistles to the various ,churches1      
which1 instead of containing the last   
exhortations and farewell words which   
might be considered natural from the    
expectant martyr1 are filled with       
advanced views of ,church government1   
and the dignity of the episcopate4      
,these circumstances1 at the outset1    
excite grave suspicions of the truth of 
the documents and of the story which    
they set forth4  ,when we enquire       
whether the alleged facts of the case   
are supported by historical data1 the   
reply is emphatically adverse4 ,all that
 is known of the treatment of           
,christians during the reign of ,trajan1
 as well as of the character of the     
,emperor1 is opposed to the supposition 
that ,ignatius could have been condemned
 by ,trajan himself1 or even by a       
provincial governor1 to be taken to     
,rome and there cast to the beasts4 ,it 
is well known that under ,trajan there  
was no general persecution of           
,christians1 although there may have    

been instances in which prominent       
members of the body were either punished
 or fell victims to popular fury and    
superstition4 #aje3a ,an instance of    
this kind was the martyrdom of ,simeon1 
,bishop of ,jerusalem1 reported by      
,hegesippus4 ,he was not condemned ad   
bestias1 however1 and much less deported
 to ,rome for the purpose4 ,why should  
,ignatius have been so exceptionally    
treated8 ,in fact1 even during the      
persecutions under ,marcus ,aurelius1   
although ,christians in ,syria were     
frequently enough cast to the beasts1   
there is no instance recorded in which  
anyone condemned to this fate was sent  
to ,rome4 ,such a sentence is quite at  
variance with the clement character of  
,trajan and his principles of           
government4 ,neander1 in a passage      
quoted by ,baur1 says3 ,as he 7,trajan71
 like ,pliny1 considered ,christianity  
mere fanaticism1 he also probably       
thought that if severity were combined  
with clemency1 if too much noise were   

not made about it1 the open             
demonstration not left unpunished but   
also minds not stirred up by            
persecution1 the fanatical enthusiasm   
would most easily cool down1 and the    
matter by degrees come to an end4 #ajf3a
 ,this was certainly the policy which   
mainly characterised his reign4 ,now not
 only would this severe sentence have   
been contrary to such principles1 but   
the agitation excited would have been   
enormously increased by sending the     
martyr a long journey by land through   
,asia1 and allowing him to pass through 
some of the principal cities1 hold      
constant intercourse with the various   
,christian communities1 and address long
 epistles to them4 ,with the fervid     
desire for martyrdom then prevalent1    
such a journey would have been a        
triumphal progress1 spreading everywhere
 excitement and enthusiasm4 ,it may not 
be out of place1 as an indication of the
 results of impartial examination1 to   
point out that ,neander's inability to  

accept the ,ignatian ,epistles largely  
rests on his disbelief of the whole     
tradition of this sentence and          
martyr-journey4 ,we do not recognise the
 ,emperor ,trajan in this narrative 7the
 martyrology71 he says1 therefore cannot
 but doubt everything which is related  
by this document1 as well as that1      
during this reign1 ,christians can have 
been cast to the wild beasts4 #ajf3b    
,if1 for a moment1 we suppose that1     
instead of being condemned by ,trajan   
himself1 ,ignatius received his sentence
 from a provincial governor1 the story  
does not gain greater probability4 ,it  
is not credible that such an official   
would have ventured to act so much in   
opposition to the spirit of the         
,emperor's government4 ,besides1 if such
 a governor did pronounce so severe a   
sentence1 why did he not execute it in  
,antioch8 ,why send the prisoner to     
,rome8 ,by doing so he made all the more
 conspicuous a severity which was not   
likely to be pleasing to the clement    

,trajan4 ,the cruelty which dictated a  
condemnation ad bestias would have been 
more gratified by execution on the spot1
 and there is besides no instance known1
 even during the following general      
persecution1 of ,christians being sent  
for execution in ,rome4 ,the transport  
to ,rome is in no case credible1 and the
 utmost that can be admitted is1 that   
,ignatius1 like ,simeon of ,jerusalem1  
may have been condemned to death during 
this reign1 more especially if the event
 be associated with some sudden outbreak
 of superstitious fury against the      
,christians1 to which the martyr may at 
once have fallen a victim4 ,we are not  
without indications of such a cause     
operating in the case of ,ignatius4  ,it
 is generally admitted that the date of 
,trajan's visit to ,antioch is ,a4,d4   
#aae1 when he wintered there during the 
,parthian ,war4 ,an earthquake occurred 
on the #acth ,december of that year1    
which was well calculated to excite     
popular superstition4 ,it may not be out

 of place to quote here the account of  
the earthquake given by ,dean ,milman1  
who1 although he mentions a different   
date1 and adheres to the martyrdom in   
,rome1 still associates the condemnation
 of ,ignatius with the earthquake4 ,he  
says3 ,nevertheless1 at that time there 
were circumstances which account with   
singular likelihood for that sudden     
outburst of persecution in ,antioch 444 
,at this very time an earthquake1 more  
than usually terrible and destructive1  
shook the cities of the ,east4 ,antioch 
suffered its most appalling             
ravages--,antioch1 crowded with the     
legionaries prepared for the ,emperor's 
invasion of the ,east1 with ambassadors 
and tributary kings from all parts of   
the ,east4 ,the city shook through all  
its streets2 houses1 palaces1 theatres1 
temples fell crashing down4 ,many were  
killed3 the ,consul ,pedo died of his   
hurts4 ,the ,emperor himself hardly     
escaped through a window1 and took      
refuge in the ,circus1 where he passed  

some days in the open air4 ,whence this 
terrible blow but from the wrath of the 
,gods1 who must be appeased by unusual  
sacrifices8 ,this was towards the end of
 ,january2 early in ,february the       
,christian ,bishop1 ,ignatius1 was      
arrested4 ,we know how1 during this     
century1 at every period of public      
calamity1 whatever that calamity might  
be1 the cry of the panic-stricken       
,heathens was1 ',the ,christians to the 
lions6' ,it maybe that1 in ,trajan's    
humanity1 in order to prevent a general 
massacre by the infuriated populace1 or 
to give greater solemnity to the        
sacrifice1 the execution was ordered to 
take place1 not in ,antioch1 but in     
,rome4 #ajh3a ,i contend that these     
reasons1 on the contrary1 render        
execution in ,antioch infinitely more   
probable4 ,to continue1 however3 the    
earthquake occurred on the #acth1 and   
the martyrdom of ,ignatius took place on
 the #bjth ,december1 just a week after 
the earthquake4 ,his remains1 as we know

 from ,chrysostom and others1 were1 as  
an actual fact1 interred at ,antioch4   
,the natural inference is that the      
martyrdom1 the only part of the         
,ignatian story which is credible1      
occurred not in ,rome but in ,antioch   
itself1 in consequence of the           
superstitious fury against the ,greek3  
atheoi aroused by the earthquake4  ,i   
will now go more into the details of the
 brief statements ,i have just made1 and
 here we come for the first time to     
,john ,malalas4 ,in the first place he  
mentions the occurrence of the          
earthquake on the #acth ,december4 ,i   
will quote ,dr4 ,lightfoot's own        
rendering of his further important      
statement4 ,he says3--      ,the words  
of ,john ,malalas are3 ,the same king   
,trajan was residing     in the same    
city 7,antioch7 when the visitation of  
,god 7i4e4 the     earthquake7 occurred4
 ,and at that time the holy ,ignatius1  
the bishop     of the city of ,antioch1 
was martyred 7or bore testimony1 ,greek3

     emarturse7 before him 7,greek3 epi 
autou72 for he was     exasperated      
against him1 because he reviled him4'   
#aji3a  ,dr4 ,lightfoot endeavours in   
every way to discredit this statement4  
,he argues that ,malalas tells foolish  
stories about other matters1 and1       
therefore1 is not to be believed here2  
but so simple a piece of information may
 well be correctly conveyed by a writer 
who elsewhere may record stupid         
traditions4 #aji3b ,if the narrative of 
foolish stories and fabulous traditions 
is to exclude belief in everything else 
stated by those who relate them1 the    
whole of the ,fathers are disposed of at
 one fell swoop1 for they all do so4    
,dr4 ,lightfoot also assert that the    
theory of the cause of the martyrdom    
advanced by ,volkmar receives no        
countenance from the story of ,malalas1 
who gives a wholly different reason--the
 irritating language used to the        
,emperor4 #aji3c ,on the other hand1 it 
in no way contradicts it1 for ,ignatius 

can only have reviled ,trajan when      
brought before him1 and his being taken 
before him may well have been caused by 
the fury excited by the earthquake1 even
 if the language of the ,bishop         
influenced his condemnation2 the whole  
statement of ,malalas is in perfect     
harmony with the theory in its details1 
and in the main1 of course1 directly    
supports it4 ,then ,dr4 ,lightfoot      
actually makes use of the following     
extraordinary argument3--      ,but it  
may be worth while adding that the error
 of ,malalas is     capable of easy     
explanation4 ,he has probably           
misinterpreted some     earlier         
authority1 whose language lent itself to
 misinterpretation4     ,the words      
,greek3 marturein1 marturia1 which were 
afterwards used     especially of       
martyrdom1 had in the earlier ages a    
wider sense1     including other modes  
of witnessing to the faith3 the         
expression     ,greek3 epi ,traianou    
again is ambiguous and might denote     

either     'during the reign of         
,trajan1' or 'in the presence of        
,trajan4' ,a     blundering writer like 
,malalas might have stumbled over either
     expression4 #aaj3a  ,this is a     
favourite device4 ,in case his abuse of 
poor ,malalas should not sufficiently   
discredit him1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot attempts 
to explain away his language4 ,it would 
be difficult indeed to show that the    
words ,greek3 marturein1 marturia1      
already used in that sense in the ,new  
,testament1 were not1 at the date at    
which any record of the martyrdom of    
,ignatius which ,malalas could have had 
before him was written1 employed to     
express martyrdom1 when applied to such 
a case1 as ,dr4 ,lightfoot indeed has in
 the first instance rendered the phrase4
 ,even ,zahn1 whom ,dr4 ,lightfoot so   
implicitly follows1 emphatically decides
 against him on both points4 ,the       
,greek3 epi autou together with ,greek3 
tote can only signify 'coram ,trajano'  
7'in the presence of ,trajan'71 and     

,greek3 emarturaese only the execution4 
#aaj3b ,let anyone simply read over ,dr4
 ,lightfoot's own rendering1 which ,i   
have quoted above1 and he will see that 
such quibbles are excluded1 and that1 on
 the contrary1 ,malalas seems           
excellently well and directly to have   
interpreted his earlier authority4      
,that the statement of ,malalas does not
 agree with the reports of the ,fathers 
is no real objection1 for we have good  
reason to believe that none of them had 
information from any other source than  
the ,ignatian ,epistles themselves1 or  
tradition4 ,eusebius evidently had not4 
,irenaeus1 ,origen1 and some later      
,fathers tell us nothing about him4     
,jerome and ,chrysostom clearly take    
their accounts from these sources4      
,malalas is the first who1 by his       
variation1 proves that he had another   
and different authority before him1 and 
in abandoning the martyr-journey to     
,rome1 his account has infinitely       
greater apparent probability4 ,malalas  

lived at ,antioch1 which adds some      
weight to his statement4 ,it is objected
 that so also did ,chrysostom1 and at an
 earlier period1 and yet he repeats the 
,roman story4 ,this1 however1 is no     
valid argument against ,malalas4        
,chrysostom was too good a churchman to 
doubt the story of ,epistles so much    
tending to edification1 which were in   
wide circulation1 and had been quoted by
 earlier ,fathers4 ,it is in no way     
surprising that1 some two centuries and 
a half after the martyrdom1 he should   
quietly have accepted the               
representations of the ,epistles        
purporting to have been written by the  
martyr himself1 and that their story    
should have shaped the prevailing       
tradition4  ,the remains of ,ignatius1  
as we are informed by ,chrysostom and   
,jerome1 long remained interred in the  
cemetery of ,antioch1 but finally--in   
the time of ,theodosius1 it is          
said--were translated with great pomp   
and ceremony to a building which--such  

is the irony of events--had previously  
been a ,temple of ,fortune4 ,the story  
told1 of course1 is that the relics of  
the martyr had been carefully collected 
in the ,coliseum and carried from ,rome 
to ,antioch4 ,after reposing there for  
some centuries1 the relics1 which are   
said to have been transported from ,rome
 to ,antioch1 were1 about the seventh   
century1 carried back from ,antioch to  
,rome4 #aaa3a ,the natural and more     
simple conclusion is that1 instead of   
this double translation1 the bones of   
,ignatius had always remained in        
,antioch1 where he had suffered         
martyrdom1 and the tradition that they  
had been brought back from ,rome was    
merely the explanation which reconciled 
the fact of their actually being in     
,antioch with the legend of the         
,ignatian ,epistles4  ,the #bjth of     
,december is the date assigned to the   
death of ,ignatius in the ,martyrology1 
#aab3a and ,zahn admits that this       
interpretation is undeniable #aab3b     

,moreover1 the anniversary of his death 
was celebrated on that day in the ,greek
 ,churches and throughout the ,east4 ,in
 the ,latin ,church it is kept on the   
#ast of ,february4 ,there can be little 
doubt that this was the day of the      
translation of the relics to ,rome1 and 
this was evidently the view of ,ruinart1
 who1 although he could not positively  
contradict the views of his own ,church1
 says3 ,ignatii festum ,graeci vigesima 
die mensis ,decembris celebrant1 quo    
ipsum passum1 fuisse ,acta testantur2   
,latini vero die prima ,februarii1 an ob
 aliquam sacrarum ejus reliquiarum      
translationem8 plures enim fuisse       
constat4 #aab3c ,zahn #aab3d states that
 the ,feast of the translation in later 
calendars was celebrated on the #bith   
,january1 and he points out the evident 
ignorance which prevailed in the ,west  
regarding ,ignatius4 #aab3e  ,on the one
 hand1 therefore1 all the historical    
data which we possess regarding the     
reign and character of ,trajan discredit

 the story that ,ignatius was sent to   
,rome to be exposed to beasts in the    
,coliseum2 and all the positive evidence
 which exists1 independent of the       
,epistles themselves1 tends to establish
 the fact that he suffered martyrdom in 
,antioch4 ,on the other hand1 all the   
evidence which is offered for the       
statement that ,ignatius was sent to    
,rome is more or less directly based    
upon the representations of the letters1
 the authenticity of which is in        
discussion1 and it is surrounded with   
improbabilities of every kind4 ,and what
 is the value of any evidence emanating 
from the ,ignatian ,epistles and        
martyrologies8 ,there are three         
martyrologies which1 as ,ewald says1 are
 the one more fabulous than the other4  
,there are fifteen ,epistles all equally
 purporting to be by ,ignatius1 and most
 of them handed down together in ,,mss41
 without any distinction4 ,three of     
these1 in ,latin only1 are universally  
rejected1 as are also other five        

,epistles1 of which there are ,greek1   
,latin1 and other versions4 ,of the     
remaining seven there are two forms1 one
 called the ,long ,recension and another
 shorter1 known as the ,vossian         
,epistles4 ,the former is almost        
unanimously rejected as shamefully      
interpolated and falsified2 and a       
majority of critics assert that the text
 of the ,vossian ,epistles is likewise  
very impure4 ,besides these there is a  
still shorter version of three ,epistles
 only1 the ,curetonian1 which many able 
critics declare to be the only genuine  
letters of ,ignatius1 whilst a still    
greater number1 both from internal and  
external reasons1 deny the authenticity 
of the ,epistles in any form4 ,the      
second and third centuries teem with    
pseudonymic literature1 but ,i venture  
to say that pious fraud has never been  
more busy and conspicuous than in       
dealing with the ,martyr of ,antioch4   
,the mere statement of the simple and   
acknowledged facts regarding the        

,ignatian ,epistles is ample            
justification of the assertion1 which so
 mightily offends ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 that 
the whole of the ,ignatian literature is
 a mass of falsification and fraud4     
,even my indignant critic himself has   
not ventured to use as genuine more than
 the three short ,syriac letters #aad3a 
out of this mass of forgery1 which he   
rebukes me for holding so cheap4        
,documents which lie under such grave   
and permanent suspicion cannot prove    
anything4 ,as ,i have shown1 however1   
the ,vossian ,epistles1 whatever the    
value of their testimony1 so far from   
supporting the claims advanced in favour
 of our ,gospels1 rather discredit them4
  ,i have now minutely followed ,dr4    
,lightfoot and ,dr4 ,westcott in their  
attacks upon me in connection with      
,eusebius and the ,ignatian ,epistles1  
and ,i trust that ,i have shown once for
 all that the charges of                
misrepresentation and misstatement1 so  
lightly and liberally advanced1 far from

 being well-founded1 recoil upon        
themselves4 ,it is impossible in a work 
like this1 dealing with such voluminous 
materials1 to escape errors of detail1  
as both of these gentlemen bear witness1
 but ,i have at least conscientiously   
endeavoured to be fair1 and ,i venture  
to think that few writers have ever more
 fully laid before readers the actual   
means of judging of the accuracy of     
every statement which has been made4    
,,iii4  ,,polycarp ,,of ,,smyrna4   ,in 
my chapter on ,polycarp ,i state the    
various opinions expressed by critics   
regarding the authenticity of the       
,epistle ascribed to him1 and ,i more   
particularly point out the reasons which
 have led many to decide that it is     
either spurious or interpolated4  ,that 
an ,epistle of ,polycarp did really     
exist at one time no one doubts1 but the
 proof that the ,epistle which is now   
extant was the actual ,epistle written  
by ,polycarp is not proven4 ,dr4        
,lightfoot's essay of course assumes the

 authenticity1 and seeks to establish   
it4 ,a large part of it is directed to  
the date which must be assigned to it on
 that supposition1 and recent researches
 seem to establish that the martyrdom of
 ,polycarp must be set some two years   
earlier than was formerly believed4 ,the
 ,chronicon of ,eusebius dates his death
 ,a4,d4 #aff or #afg1 and he is said to 
have been martyred during the           
proconsulship of ,statius ,quadratus4   
,m4 ,waddington1 in examining the       
proconsular annals of ,asia ,minor1 with
 the assistance of newly-discovered     
inscriptions1 has decided that ,statius 
,quadratus was proconsul in ,a4,d4      
#aed-aee1 and if ,polycarp was martyred 
during his proconsulship it would follow
 that his death must have taken place in
 one of those years4  ,having said so   
much in support of the authenticity of  
the ,epistle of ,polycarp1 and the      
earlier date to be assigned to it1 it   
might have been expected that ,dr4      
,lightfoot would have proceeded to show 

what bearing the epistle has upon the   
evidence for the existence of the       
,gospels and their sufficiency as       
testimony for the miracles which those  
,gospels record4 ,he has not done so1   
however1 for he is in such haste to find
 small faults with my statements1 and   
disparage my work1 that1 having arrived 
at this point1 he at once rushes off    
upon this side issue1 and does not say  
one word that ,i can discover regarding 
any supposed use of ,gospels in the     
,epistle4 ,for a complete discussion of 
analogies which other apologists have   
pointed out ,i must refer to            
,supernatural ,religion itself2 #aaf3a  
but ,i may here state the case in the   
strongest form for them4 ,it is asserted
 that ,polycarp in this ,epistle uses   
expressions which correspond more or    
less closely with some of those in our  
,gospels4 ,it is not in the least       
pretended that the ,gospels are referred
 to by name1 or that any information is 
given regarding their authorship or     

composition4 ,if1 therefore1 the use of 
the ,gospels could be established1 and  
the absolute authenticity of the        
,epistle1 what could this do towards    
proving the actual performance of       
miracles or the reality of ,divine      
,revelation8 ,the mere existence of     
anonymous ,gospels would be indicated1  
and though this might be considered a   
good deal in the actual evidential      
destitution1 it would leave the chief   
difficulty quite untouched4      ,,iv4  
,,papias ,,of ,,hierapolis4   ,dr4      
,lightfoot has devoted two long chapters
 to the evidence of ,papias1 although   
with a good deal of divergence to other 
topics in the second4 ,i need not follow
 him minutely here1 for ,i have treated 
the subject fully in ,supernatural      
,religion1 #aag3a to which ,i beg leave 
to refer any reader who is interested in
 the discussion2 and this is merely ,dr4
 ,lightfoot's reply4 ,i will confine    
myself here to a few words on the       
fundamental question at issue4  ,papias1

 in the absence of other testimony1 is  
an important witness of whom theologians
 are naturally very tenacious1 inasmuch 
as he is the first writer who mentions  
the name of anyone who was believed to  
have written a ,gospel4 ,it is true that
 what he says is of very little weight1 
but1 since no one else had said anything
 at all on the point1 his remarks merit 
attention which they would not otherwise
 receive4  ,eusebius states that1 in his
 last work1 #aag3b ,exposition of the   
,lord's ,oracles 7,greek3 ,login kuriakn
 exgsis71 ,papias wrote as follows3     
,and the elder said this also3 ',mark1  
having become the interpreter     of    
,peter1 wrote down accurately everything
 that he remembered1     without1       
however1 recording in order what was    
either said or done     by ,christ4 ,for
 neither did he hear the ,lord1 nor did 
he follow ,him2     but afterwards1 as  
,i said1 attended ,peter1 who adapted   
his     instructions to the needs of his
 hearers1 but had no design of          

giving a connected account of the       
,lord's oracles or discourses           
7,greek3 all' ouch hsper suntaxin tn    
kuriakn poioumenos login     or ,greek3 
logn74' ,so1 then1 ,mark made no mistake
 while he thus     wrote down some      
things as he remembered them2 for he    
made it his     one care not to omit    
anything that he heard1 or to set down  
any     false statement therein4 #aah3a 
,the first question which suggests      
itself is3 ,does the description here   
given correspond with the ,gospel       
according to ,mark which we now possess8
 ,can our second ,gospel be considered a
 work composed without recording in     
order what was either said or done by   
,christ8 ,a negative answer has been    
given by many eminent critics to these  
and similar enquiries1 and the          
application of the ,presbyter's words to
 it has consequently been denied by     
them4 ,it does not follow from this that
 there has been any refusal to accept   
the words of ,papias as referring to a  

work which may have been the basis of   
the second ,gospel as we have it4       
,however1 ,i propose to waive all this  
objection1 for the sake of argument1 on 
the present occasion1 and to consider   
what might be the value of the evidence 
before us1 if it be taken as referring  
to our second ,gospel4  ,in the first   
place1 the tradition distinctly states  
that ,mark1 who is said to have been its
 author1 was neither an eye-witness of  
the circumstances recorded1 nor a hearer
 of the words of ,jesus1 but that he    
merely recorded what he remembered of   
the casual teaching of ,peter4 ,it is   
true that an assurance is added as to   
the general care and accuracy of ,mark  
in recording all that he heard and not  
making any false statement1 but this    
does not add much value to his record4  
,no one supposes that the writer of the 
second ,gospel deliberately invented    
what he has embodied in his work1 and   
the certificate of character can be     
received for nothing more than a general

 estimate of the speaker4 ,the testimony
 of the second ,gospel is1 according to 
this tradition1 confessedly at second   
hand1 and consequently utterly          
inadequate to attest miraculous         
pretensions4 ,the tradition that ,mark  
derived his information from the        
preaching of ,peter is not supported by 
internal evidence1 and has nothing      
extraneous to strengthen its            
probability4 ,because some person1 whose
 very identity is far from established1 
says so1 is not strong evidence of the  
fact4 ,it was the earnest desire of the 
early ,christians to connect ,apostles  
with the authorship of the ,gospels1 and
 as ,mark is represented as the         
interpreter of ,peter1 so ,luke1 or the 
third evangelist1 is connected more or  
less closely with ,paul1 in             
forgetfulness of the circumstance that  
we have no reason whatever for believing
 that ,paul ever saw ,jesus4 ,comparison
 of the contents of the first three     
,gospels1 moreover1 not only does not   

render more probable this account of the
 composition of the second synoptic as  
it lies before us1 but is really opposed
 to it4 ,into this ,i shall not here go4
  ,setting aside1 therefore1 all the    
reasons for doubting the applicability  
of the tradition recorded by ,papias    
regarding the ,gospel said to have been 
written by ,mark1 ,i simply appeal to   
those who have rightly appreciated the  
nature of the allegations for which     
evidence is required as to the value of 
such a work1 compiled by one who had    
neither himself seen nor heard ,jesus4  
,it is quite unnecessary to proceed to  
the closer examination of the supposed  
evidence4      ,but concerning ,matthew 
the following statement is made by      
,papias3     ',so then ,matthew 7,greek3
 ,matthaios men oun7 composed the       
,oracles     in the ,hebrew language1   
and each one interpreted them as he     
could4'     #aai3a  ,dr4 ,lightfoot     
points out that there is no absolute    
reason for supposing that this          

statement1 like the former1 was made on 
the authority of the ,presbyter1 and1   
although ,i think it probable that it   
was1 ,i agree with him in this4 ,the    
doubt1 however1 is specially advanced   
because1 the statement of ,papias being 
particularly inconvenient to apologists1
 ,dr4 ,lightfoot is evidently anxious to
 invalidate it4 ,he accepts it in so far
 as it seems to permit of his drawing   
certain inferences from it1 but for the 
rest he proceeds to weaken the          
testimony4 ,but it does not follow that 
his account of the origin was correct4  
,it may be2 it may not have been4 ,this 
is just what we cannot decide1 because  
we do not know what he said4 #abj3a     
,what a pity it is that ,dr4 ,lightfoot 
does not always exercise this rigorous  
logic4 ,if he did he would infallibly   
agree with the conclusions of           
,supernatural ,religion4 ,i shall       
presently state what inference ,dr4     
,lightfoot wishes to draw from a        
statement the general correctness of    

which he does not consider as at all    
certain4 ,if this doubt exist1 however1 
of what value can the passage from      
,papias be as evidence8  ,i cannot      
perceive that1 if we do not reject it   
altogether on the ground of possible or 
probable incorrectness1 there can be any
 reasonable doubt as to what the actual 
statement was4 ,matthew composed the    
,oracles in the ,hebrew language1 and   
not in ,greek1 and each one interpreted 
them as he could4 ,the original work of 
,matthew was written in ,hebrew3 our    
first synoptic is a ,greek work3        
therefore it cannot possibly be the     
original composition of ,matthew1       
whoever ,matthew may have been1 but at  
the best can only be a free translation4
 ,a free translation1 ,i say1 because it
 does not bear any of the traces of     
close translation4 ,our synoptic1       
indeed1 does not purport to be a        
translation at all1 but if it be a      
version of the work referred to by      
,papias1 or the ,presbyter1 a           

translation it must be4 ,as it is not in
 its original form1 however1 and no one 
can affirm what its precise relation to 
the work of ,matthew may be1 the whole  
value of the statement of ,papias is    
lost4  ,the inference which ,dr4        
,lightfoot considers himself entitled to
 draw from the testimony of ,papias is  
in most curious contrast with his severe
 handling of that part of the testimony 
which does not suit him4 ,papias1 or the
 ,presbyter1 states regarding the       
,hebrew ,oracles of ,matthew that each  
one interpreted them as he could4 ,the  
use of the verb interpreted in the past 
tense1 instead of interprets in the     
present1 he considers1 clearly indicates
 that the time which ,papias            
contemplates is not the time when he    
writes his book4 ,each one interpreted  
as he could when the ,oracles were      
written1 but the necessity of which he  
speaks had passed away2 and ,dr4        
,lightfoot arrives at the conclusion3   
,in other words1 it implies the         

existence of a recognised ,greek        
translation when ,papias wrote 444 ,but 
if a ,greek ,st4 ,matthew existed in the
 time of ,papias we are forbidden by all
 considerations of historical           
probability to suppose that it was any  
other than our ,st4 ,matthew4 #aba3a ,it
 is very probable that1 at the time when
 ,papias wrote1 there may have been     
several translations of the ,oracles and
 not merely one1 but from this to the   
assertion that the words imply a        
recognised version which was necessarily
 our ,st4 ,matthew is a remarkable jump 
at conclusions4 ,it is really not worth 
while again to discuss the point4 ,when 
imagination is allowed to interpret the 
hidden meaning of such a statement the  
consequence cannot well be predicated4  
,this hypothesis still leaves us to     
account for the substitution of a ,greek
 ,gospel for the ,hebrew original of    
,matthew1 and ,dr4 ,lightfoot does not  
assist us much4 ,he demurs to my        
statement that our first ,gospel bears  

all the marks of an original1 and cannot
 have been translated from the ,hebrew  
at all3 ,if he had said that it is not a
 homogeneous ,greek version of a        
homogeneous ,hebrew original this would 
have been nearer the truth4 #abb3a      
,that ,hebrew original is a sad         
stumbling-block1 and it must be got rid 
of at all costs4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot is full
 of resources4 ,we have seen that he has
 suggested that the account of ,papias  
of the origin may not have been correct4
 ,regarding the translation or the      
,greek ,gospel we do not know exactly   
what ,papias said4 ,he may have         
expressed himself in language quite     
consistent with the phenomena4 ,how     
unlimited a field for conjecture is thus
 opened out4 ,we do not know more of    
what ,papias said than ,eusebius has    
recorded1 and may therefore suppose that
 he may have said something more1 which 
may have been consistent with any theory
 we may advance4 ,or1 on the other hand1
 ,dr4 ,lightfoot continues1 he may1 as  

,hilgenfeld supposes1 have made the     
mistake which some later ,fathers made  
of thinking that the ,gospel according  
to the ,hebrews was the original of our 
,st4 ,matthew4 #abb3b ,who would think  
that this is the critic who vents so    
much righteous indignation upon me for  
pointing out possible or probable       
alternative interpretations of vague    
evidence extracted from the ,fathers8   
,it is true that ,dr4 ,lightfoot        
continues3 ,in the absence of adequate  
data1 it is quite vain to conjecture4   
,but meanwhile we are not warranted in  
drawing any conclusion unfavourable     
either to the accuracy of ,papias or to 
the identity of the document itself4    
#abb3c ,he thus seeks to reserve for    
himself any support he thinks he can    
derive from the tradition of ,papias1   
and set aside exactly as much as he does
 not like4 ,in fact1 he clearly         
demonstrates how exceedingly loose is   
all this evidence from the ,fathers1 and
 with what ease one may either base     

magnificent conclusions upon it1 or     
drive a coach and four through the whole
 mass4  ,in admitting for a moment that 
,papias may have mistaken the ,gospel of
 the ,hebrews for the original of our   
,st4 ,matthew1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 in his  
attempt to get rid of that unfortunate  
,hebrew work of ,matthew1 has perhaps   
gone further than is safe for himself4  
,apart from the general flavour of      
inaccuracy which he imparts to the      
testimony of ,papias1 the obvious       
inference is suggested that1 if he made 
this mistake1 ,papias is far from being 
a witness for the accuracy of the       
translation which ,dr4 ,lightfoot       
supposes to have then been recognised1  
and which he declares to have been our  
first ,gospel4 ,it is well known at     
least that1 although the ,gospel of the 
,hebrews bore more analogy to our       
present ,gospel according to ,matthew   
than to any of the other three1 it very 
distinctly differed from it4 ,if1       
therefore1 ,papias could quietly accept 

our ,greek ,matthew as an equivalent for
 the ,gospel of the ,hebrews1 from which
 it presented considerable variation1 we
 are entitled to reject such a          
translation as evidence of the contents 
of the original4 ,that ,papias was      
actually acquainted with the ,gospel    
according to the ,hebrews may be        
inferred from the statement of ,eusebius
 that he relates a story about a woman  
accused of many sins before the ,lord   
7doubtless the same which is found in   
our copies of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 vii4
 #ec-viii4 #aa71 which the ,gospel      
according to the ,hebrews contains4     
#abc3a ,if he exercised any critical    
power at all1 he could not confound the 
,greek ,matthew with it1 and if he did  
not1 what becomes of ,dr4 ,lightfoot's  
argument8  ,dr4 ,lightfoot argues at    
considerable length against the         
interpretation1 accepted by many eminent
 critics1 that the work ascribed to     
,matthew and called the ,oracles        
7,greek3 logia7 could not be the first  

synoptic as we now possess it1 but must 
have consisted mainly or entirely of    
,discourses4 ,the argument will be found
 in ,supernatural ,religion1 #abd3a and 
need not here be repeated4 ,i will      
confine myself to some points of ,dr4   
,lightfoot's reply4 ,he seems not to    
reject the suggestion with so much      
vigour as might have been expected4 ,the
 theory is not without its attractions1 
he says2 it promises a solution of some 
difficulties2 but hitherto it has not   
yielded any results which would justify 
its acceptance4 #abd3b ,indeed1 he      
proceeds to say that it is encumbered   
with the most serious difficulties4 ,dr4
 ,lightfoot does not think that only    
,greek3 logoi 7discourses or sayings7   
could be called ,greek3 logia 7oracles71
 and says that usage does not warrant   
the restriction4 #abd3c ,i had contended
 that however much the signification 7of
 the expression 'the oracles1' ,greek3  
ta logia7 became afterwards extended1 it
 was not then at all applied to doings  

as well as sayings1 and that there is no
 linguistic precedent for straining the 
expression1 used at that period1 to mean
 anything beyond a collection of sayings
 of ,jesus1 which were oracular or      
,divine4 #abd3d ,to this ,dr4 ,lightfoot
 replies that if the objection has any  
force it involves one or both of the two
 assumptions3 first1 that books which   
were regarded as ,scripture could not at
 this early date be called 'oracles1'   
unless they were occupied entirely with 
,divine sayings2 secondly1 that the     
,gospel of ,st4 ,matthew1 in particular1
 could not at this time be regarded as  
,scripture4 ,both assumptions alike are 
contradicted by facts4 #abe3a ,the      
second point he considers proved by the 
well-known passage in the ,epistle of   
,barnabas4 ,for the discussion regarding
 it ,i beg leave to refer the reader to 
my volumes4 #abe3b ,i venture to say    
that it is impossible to prove that     
,matthew's ,gospel was1 at that time1   
considered ,scripture1 but1 on the      

contrary1 that there are excellent      
reasons for affirming that it was not4  
,regarding the first point ,dr4         
,lightfoot asserts3      ,the first is  
refuted by a large number of examples4  
,st4 ,paul1 for     instance1 describes 
it as the special privilege of the ,jews
 that     they had the keeping of 'the  
oracles of ,god' 7,rom4 iii4 #b74 ,can  
we     suppose that he meant anything   
else but the ,old ,testament ,scriptures
     by this expression8 ,is it possible
 that he would exclude the books     of 
,genesis1 of ,joshua1 of ,samuel and    
,kings1 or only include such            
fragments of them as professed to give  
the direct sayings of ,god8     ,would  
he1 or would he not1 comprise under the 
term the account of     the creation and
 fall 7#a ,cor4 xi4 #h sq471 of the     
wanderings in the     wilderness 7#a    
,cor4 x4 #a sq471 of ,sarah and ,hagar  
7,gal4 iv4 #ba     sq478 ,does not the  
main part of his argument in the very   
next     chapter 7,rom4 iv47 depend more

 on the narrative of ,god's dealings    
than ,his words8 ,again1 when the author
 of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews        
refers to 'the first principles of the  
oracles of ,god' 7v4 #ab71 his          
meaning is explained by his practice2   
for he elicits the ,divine     teaching 
quite as much from the history as from  
the direct precepts     of the ,old     
,testament4 ,but if the language of the 
,new ,testament     writers leaves any  
loophole for doubt1 this is not the case
 with     their contemporary ,philo4 ,in
 one place1 he speaks of the words in   
,deut4 x4 #i1 ',the ,lord is his        
inheritance1' as an 'oracle' 7,greek3   
logion72 in another he quotes as an     
'oracle' 7,greek3 logion7 the           
narrative in ,gen4 iv4 #ae3 ',the ,lord 
,god set a mark upon ,cain1 lest        
anyone finding him should kill him4'    
#abe3c ,from this and other     passages
 it is clear that with ,philo an        
'oracle' is a synonyme for a            
,scripture4 ,similarly ,clement of ,rome

 writes3 ',ye know well the     sacred  
,scriptures1 and have studied the       
oracles of ,god2' #abe3d and            
immediately he recalls to their mind the
 account in ,deut4 ix4 #ab     sq41     
,exod4 xxxii4 #g sq41 of which the point
 is not any ,divine     precept or      
prediction1 but the example of ,moses4  
,a few years later     ,polycarp speaks 
in condemnation of those who 'pervert   
the oracles of     the ,lord4 #abf3a    
,he then goes on to refer to ,irenaeus1 
,clement of ,alexandria1 ,origen1 and   
,basil1 but ,i need not follow him to   
these later writers1 but confine myself 
to that which ,i have quoted4  ,when    
,paul writes in the ,epistle to the     
,romans iii4 #b1 ',they were entrusted  
with the oracles of ,god1' can he mean  
anything else but the ,old ,testament   
,scriptures1 including the historical   
books8 argues ,dr4 ,lightfoot4 ,i       
maintain1 on the contrary1 that he      
certainly does not refer to a collection
 of writings at all1 but to the         

communications or revelations of ,god1  
and1 as the context shows1 probably more
 immediately to the ,messianic          
prophecies4 ,the advantage of the ,jews1
 in fact1 according to ,paul here1 was  
that to them were first communicated the
 ,divine oracles3 that they were made   
the medium of ,god's utterances to      
mankind4 ,there seems almost an echo of 
the expression in ,acts vii4 #ch1 where 
,stephen is represented as saying to the
 ,jews of their fathers on ,mount       
,sinai1 who received living oracles     
7,greek3 logia znta7 to give unto us4   
,of this nature were the oracles of ,god
 which were entrusted to the ,jews4     
,further1 the phrase3 the first         
principles of the oracles of ,god 7,heb4
 v4 #ab71 is no application of the term 
to narrative1 as ,dr4 ,lightfoot        
affirms1 however much the author may    
illustrate his own teaching by ,old     
,testament history2 but the writer of   
the ,epistle clearly explains his       
meaning in the first and second verses  

of his letter1 when he says3 ,god having
 spoken to the fathers in time past in  
the prophets1 at the end of these days  
spake unto us in ,his ,son4 ,dr4        
,lightfoot also urges that ,philo       
applies the term oracle 7,greek3 logion7
 to the narrative in ,gen4 iv4 #ae1 c4  
,the fact is1 however1 that ,philo      
considered almost every part of the ,old
 ,testament as allegorical1 and held    
that narrative or descriptive phrases   
veiled ,divine oracles4 ,when he applies
 the term oracle to any of these it is  
not to the narrative1 but to the ,divine
 utterance which he believes to be      
mystically contained in it1 and which he
 extracts and expounds in the usual     
extravagant manner of ,alexandrian      
typologists4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot does not   
refer to the expression of #a ,pet4 iv4 
#aa1 ,let him speak as the oracles of   
,god 7,greek3 hs logia ,theou71 which   
shows the use of the word in the ,new   
,testament4 ,he does point out the      
passage in the ,epistle of ,clement of  

,rome1 than which1 in my opinion1       
nothing could more directly tell against
 him4 ,ye know well the sacred          
,scriptures and have studied the oracles
 of ,god4 ,the oracles of ,god are      
pointedly distinguished from the sacred 
,scriptures1 of which they form a part4 
,these oracles are contained in the     
sacred ,scriptures1 but are not         
synonymous with the whole of them4 ,dr4 
,lightfoot admits that we cannot say how
 much ,polycarp included in the         
expression3 pervert the oracles of the  
,lord1 but ,i maintain that it must be  
referred to the teaching of ,jesus      
regarding a resurrection and a judgment1
 and not to historical books4  ,in      
replying to ,dr4 ,lightfoot's chapter on
 the ,silence of ,eusebius1 ,i have said
 all that is necessary regarding the    
other ,gospels in connection with       
,papias4 ,papias is the most interesting
 witness we have concerning the         
composition of the ,gospels4 ,he has not
 told us much1 but he has told us more  

than any previous writer4 ,dr4          
,lightfoot has not scrupled to discredit
 his own witness1 however1 and he is    
quite right in suggesting that no great 
reliance can be placed upon his         
testimony4 ,it comes to this3 ,we cannot
 rely upon the correctness of the meagre
 account of the ,gospels supposed to    
have been written by ,mark and ,matthew1
 and we have no other upon which to fall
 back4 ,regarding the other two         
,gospels1 we have no information        
whatever from ,papias1 whether correct  
or incorrect1 and altogether this       
,father does little or nothing towards  
establishing the credibility of miracles
 and the reality of ,divine ,revelation4
      ,v4  ,,melito ,,of                
,,sardis--,,claudius                    
,,apollinaris--,,polycrates4            
,throughout the whole of these essays1  
,dr4 ,lightfoot has shown the most      
complete misapprehension of the purpose 
for which the examination of the        
evidence regarding the ,gospels in early

 writings was undertaken in             
,supernatural ,religion1 and            
consequently he naturally misunderstands
 and misrepresents its argument from    
first to last4 ,this becomes            
increasingly evident when we come to    
writers1 whom he fancifully denominates3
 the later school of ,st4 ,john4 ,he    
evidently considers that he is producing
 a very destructive effect1 when he     
demonstrates from the writings1 genuine 
or spurious1 of such men as ,melito of  
,sardis1 ,claudius ,apollinaris and     
,polycrates of ,ephesus1 or from much   
more than suspected documents like the  
,martyrdom of ,polycarp1 that towards   
the last quarter of the second century  
they were acquainted with the doctrines 
of ,christianity and1 as he infers1     
derived them from our four ,gospels4 ,he
 really seems incapable of              
discriminating between a denial that    
there is clear and palpable evidence of 
the existence and authorship of these   
particular ,gospels1 and denial that    

they actually existed at all4 ,i do not 
suppose that there is any critic1 past  
or present1 who doubts that our four    
,gospels had been composed and were in  
wide circulation during this period of  
the second century4 ,it is a very       
different matter to examine what        
absolute testimony there is regarding   
the origin1 authenticity1 and           
trustworthiness of these documents1 as  
records of miracles and witnesses for   
the reality of ,divine ,revelation4  ,i 
cannot accuse myself of having misled   
,dr4 ,lightfoot on this point by any    
obscurity in the statement of my object1
 but1 as he and other apologists have   
carefully ignored it1 and systematically
 warped my argument1 either by accident 
or design1 ,i venture to quote a few    
sentences from ,supernatural ,religion1 
both to justify myself and to restore   
the discussion to its proper lines4  ,in
 winding up the first part of the work1 
which was principally concerned with the
 antecedent credibility of miracles1 ,i 

said3--      ,now it is apparent that   
the evidence for miracles requires to   
embrace two distinct points3 the reality
 of the alleged facts1 and     the      
accuracy of the inference that the      
phenomena were produced by              
supernatural agency 444 ,in order1      
however1 to render our conclusion       
complete1 it remains for us to see      
whether1 as affirmed1 there be     any  
special evidence regarding the alleged  
facts entitling the     ,gospel miracles
 to exceptional attention4 ,if1 instead 
of being     clear1 direct1 the         
undoubted testimony of known            
eye-witnesses free     from superstition
 and capable1 through adequate          
knowledge1 rightly     to estimate the  
alleged phenomena1 we find that the     
actual accounts     have none of these  
qualifications1 the final decision with 
regard to     miracles and the reality  
of ,divine ,revelation will be easy and 
conclusive4 #acj3a  ,before commencing  
the examination of the evidence for the 

,gospels1 ,i was careful to state the   
principles upon which ,i considered it  
right to proceed4 ,i said3      ,before 
commencing our examination of the       
evidence as to the date1     authorship1
 and character of the ,gospels1 it may  
be well to make a     few preliminary   
remarks1 and clearly state certain      
canons of     criticism4 ,we shall make 
no attempt to establish any theory as to
     the date at which any of the       
,gospels was actually written1 but      
simply examine all the testimony which  
is extant1 with the view of             
ascertaining what is known of these     
works and their authors1     certainly  
and distinctly1 as distinguished from   
what is merely     conjectured or       
inferred 444 ,we propose1 therefore1 as 
exhaustively     as possible1 to search 
all the writings of the early ,church   
for     information regarding the       
,gospels1 and to examine even the       
alleged     indications of their use 444
 ,it is still more important that we    

should constantly bear in mind that a   
great number of ,gospels     existed in 
the early ,church which are no longer   
extant1 and of most     of which even   
the names are lost4 ,we need not here do
 more than     refer1 in corroboration  
of this fact1 to the preliminary        
statement     of the author of the third
 ,gospel3 ',forasmuch as many 7,greek3  
polloi7 took in hand to set forth in    
order a declaration of the     things   
which have been accomplish among us1' c4
 ,it is1 therefore1     evident that    
before our third synoptic was written   
many similar     works were already in  
circulation4 ,looking at the close      
similarity     of large portions of the 
three synoptics1 it is almost certain   
that     many of the writings here      
mentioned bore a close analogy to each  
other and to our ,gospels1 and this is  
known to have been the case1     for    
instance1 amongst the various forms of  
the ',gospel according to     the       
,hebrews4' ,when1 therefore1 in early   

writings1 we meet with     quotations   
closely resembling1 or1 we may add1 even
 identical1 with     passages which are 
found in our ,gospels1 the source of    
which1     however1 is not mentioned1   
nor is any author's name indicated1 the 
similarity or even identity cannot by   
any means be admitted as proof     that 
the quotation is necessarily from our   
,gospels1 and not from     some other   
similar work now no longer extant1 and  
more especially     not when1 in the    
same writings1 there are other          
quotations from     sources different   
from our ,gospels4444 ,but whilst       
similarity to our     ,gospels in       
passages quoted by early writers from   
unnamed sources     cannot prove the use
 of our ,gospels1 variation from them   
would     suggest or prove a different  
origin1 and at least it is obvious      
that anonymous quotations which do not  
agree with our ,gospels cannot     in   
any case necessarily indicate their     
existence 444 ,it is     unnecessary to 

add that1 in proportion as we remove    
from ,apostolic     times without       
positive evidence of the existence and  
authenticity of     our ,gospels1 so    
does the value of their testimony       
dwindle away4     ,indeed1 requiring1 as
 we do1 clear1 direct and irrefragable  
evidence     of the integrity1          
authenticity1 and historical character  
of these     ,gospels1 doubt or         
obscurity on these points must          
inevitably be fatal     to them as      
sufficient testimony--if they could1    
under any     circumstances1 be         
considered sufficient testimony--for    
miracles and     a direct ,divine       
,revelation like ecclesiastical         
,christianity4     #acb3a  ,dr4         
,lightfoot must have been aware of these
 statements1 since he has made the      
paragraph on the silence of ancient     
writers the basis of his essay on the   
silence of ,eusebius1 and has been so   
particular in calling attention to any  
alteration ,i have made in my text2 and 

it might have been better if1 instead of
 cheap sneers on every occasion in which
 these canons have been applied1 he had 
once for all stated any reasons which he
 can bring forward against the canons   
themselves4 ,the course he has adopted1 
,i can well understand1 is more         
convenient for him and1 after all1 with 
many it is quite as effective4  ,it may 
be well that ,i should here again       
illustrate the necessity for such canons
 of criticism as ,i have indicated      
above1 and which can be done very simply
 from our own ,gospels3      ,not only  
the language but the order of a         
quotation must have its     due weight1 
and we have no right to dismember a     
passage and1     discovering fragmentary
 parallels in various parts of the      
,gospels1     to assert that it is      
compiled from them and not derived1 as  
it     stands1 from another source4 ,as 
an illustration1 let us for a moment    
suppose the ',gospel according to ,luke'
 to have been lost1 like the            

',gospel according to the ,hebrews' and 
so many others4 ,in the works     of one
 of the ,fathers we discover the        
following quotation from an     unnamed 
evangelical work3 ',and he said unto    
them 7,greek3 elegen de     pros        
autous73 ',the harvest truly is great1  
but the labourers are     few2 pray ye  
therefore the ,lord of the harvest that 
he would send     forth labourers into  
his harvest4 ,go your ways 7,greek3     
hupagete73     behold1 ,i send you forth
 as lambs 7,greek3 arnas7 in the midst  
of     wolves4' ,following the system   
adopted in regard to ,justin and        
others1 apologetic critics would of     
course maintain that this was a         
compilation from memory of passages     
quoted from our first     ,gospel--that 
is to say1 ,matt ix1 #cg3 ',then saith  
he unto his     disciples 7,greek3 tote 
legei tois mathtais autou71 ,the        
harvest1'     c42 and ,matt4 x4 #af3    
',behold1 ,i 7,greek3 eg7 send you forth
 as     sheep' 7,greek3 probata7 in the 

midst of wolves3 be ye therefore1'      
c41 which1 with the differences which we
 have indicated1 agree4 ,it     would   
probably be in vain to argue that the   
quotation indicated a     continuous    
order1 and the variations combined to   
confirm the     probability of a        
different source1 and still more so to  
point out     that1 although parts of   
the quotation1 separated from their     
context1     might1 to a certain extent1
 correspond with scattered verses in the
     first ,gospel1 such a circumstance 
was no proof that the quotation     was 
taken from that and from no other       
,gospel4 ,the passage1 however1     is a
 literal quotation from ,luke x4 #b-c1  
which1 as we have assumed1     had been 
lost4      ,again1 still supposing the  
third ,gospel no longer extant1 we might
     find the following quotation in a  
work of the ,fathers3 ',take heed to    
yourselves 7,greek3 eautois7 of the     
leaven of the ,pharisees1 which     is  
hypocrisy 7,greek3 htis estin           

hupocrisis74 ,for there is     nothing  
covered up 7,greek3 sunkekalummenon7    
which shall not be     revealed1 and    
hid1 which shall not be known4' ,it     
would1 of course1     be affirmed that  
this was evidently a combination of two 
verses of     our first ,gospel quoted  
almost literally1 with merely a few very
     immaterial slips of memory in the  
parts we note1 and the explanatory      
words1 'which is hypocrisy1' introduced 
by the ,father1 and not a     part of   
the quotation at all4 ,the two verses   
are ,matt4 xvi4 #f1     ',beware and    
take heed 7,greek3 hopate kai7 of the   
leaven of the     ,pharisees and        
,sadducees 7,greek3 kai ,saddoukain71   
and ,matt4 x4 #bf1     '444 for 7,greek3
 gar7 there is nothing covered 7,greek3 
kekalummenon7 that shall not be         
revealed1 and hid1 that shall not     be
 known4' ,the sentence would1 in fact1  
be divided as in the case of            
,justin1 and each part would have its   
parallel pointed out in     separate    

portions of the ,gospel4 ,how wrong such
 a system is--and it     is precisely   
that which is adopted with regard to    
,justin--is clearly     established by  
the fact that the quotation1 instead of 
being such a     combination1 is simply 
taken as it stands from the ',gospel    
according     to ,luke1' xii4 #a-b4     
#acc3a      ,if we examine further1     
however1 in the same way1 quotations    
which     differ merely in language1 we 
arrive at the very same conclusion4     
,supposing the third ,gospel to be lost1
 what would be the source     assigned  
to the following quotation from an      
unnamed ,gospel in the     work of one  
of the ,fathers8 ',no servant 7,greek3  
oudeis oikets7     can serve two lords1 
for either he will hate the one and love
 the     other1 or else he will hold to 
the one and despise the other4 ,ye      
cannot serve ,god and ,mammon4' ,of     
course the passage would be claimed     
as a quotation from memory of ,matt4 vi4
 #bd1 with which it perfectly           

corresponds1 with the exception of the  
addition of the second word1     ,greek3
 oikets1 which1 it would no doubt be    
argued1 is an evident     and very      
natural amplification of the simple     
,greek3 oudeis of the     first ,gospel4
 ,yet this passage1 only differing by   
the single word     from ,matthew1 is a 
literal quotation from the ,gospel      
according to     ,luke xvi4 #ac4 ,or1 to
 take another instance1 supposing the   
third     ,gospel to be lost1 and the   
following passage quoted1 from an       
unnamed     source1 by one of the       
,fathers3 ',beware 7,greek3 prosechete7 
of the     ,scribes1 which desire to    
walk in long robes1 and love 7,greek3   
philountn7 greetings in the markets1 and
 chief seats in the     synagogues1 and 
chief places at feasts2 which devour    
widows' houses1     and for a pretence  
make long prayers3 these shall receive  
greater     damnation4' ,this would1    
without hesitation1 be declared a       
quotation     from memory of ,mark xii4 

#ch-dj1 from which it only differs in a 
couple of words4 ,it is1 however1 a     
literal quotation of ,luke xx4          
#df-dg1 yet probably it would be in vain
 to submit to apologetic     critics    
that possibly1 not to say probably1 the 
passage was not     derived from ,mark1 
but from a lost ,gospel4 ,to quote one  
more     instance1 let us suppose the   
',gospel according to ,mark' no longer  
extant1 and that in some early work     
there existed the following     passage3
 ',it is easier for a camel to go       
through the eye 7,greek3     trumalias7 
of a needle than for a rich man to enter
 into the     kingdom of ,god4' ,this of
 course would be claimed as a quotation 
from     memory of ,matt4 xix4 #bd1 with
 which it agrees with the exception of  
the substitution of ,greek3 trupmatos   
for ,greek3 trumalias4 ,it     would not
 the less have been an exact quotation  
from ,mark x4 #be4     #acd3a           
,illustrations of this kind could be    
indefinitely multiplied1 and to anyone  

who has studied the three synoptics1    
with their similarities and variations1 
and considered the probable mode of     
their compilation1 it must be apparent  
that1 with the knowledge that very many 
other ,gospels existed 7,luke i4 #a71   
which can only very slowly have         
disappeared from circulation1 it is     
impossible for anyone with a due        
appreciation of the laws of evidence to 
assert that the use of short passages   
similar to others in our ,gospels       
actually proves that they must have been
 derived from these alone1 and cannot   
have emanated from any other source4 ,it
 is not necessary to deny that they may 
equally have come from the ,gospels1 but
 the inevitable decision of a judicial  
mind1 seriously measuring evidence1 must
 be that they do not absolutely prove   
anything4  ,coming now more directly to 
the essay on ,the later school of ,st4  
,john1 it is curious to find ,dr4       
,lightfoot setting in the very          
foreground the account of ,polycarp's   

martyrdom1 without a single word        
regarding the more than suspicious      
character of the document1 except the   
remark in a note that the objections    
which have been urged against this      
narrative are not serious4 #ace3a ,they 
have been considered so by men like     
,keim1 ,schrer1 ,lipsius1 and           
,holtzmann4 ,the account has too much   
need to be propped up itself to be of   
much use as a prop for the ,gospels4    
,dr4 ,lightfoot points out that an idea 
of literal conformity to the life and   
,passion of ,christ runs through the    
document1 #ace3b and it is chiefly on   
the fact that most of the incidents have
 their counterparts in the circumstances
 of the ,passion1 as recorded by the    
synoptic evangelists alone or in common 
with ,st4 ,john1 that he relies1 in     
referring to the martyrdom4 ,i need     
scarcely reply that not only1 on account
 of the very doubtful character of the  
document1 is it useless to us as        
evidence1 but because it does not name a

 single ,gospel1 much less add anything 
to our knowledge of their authorship and
 trustworthiness4 ,i shall have more to 
say regarding ,dr4 ,lightfoot in        
connection with this document further   
on4  ,the same remark applies to ,melito
 of ,sardis4 ,i have fully discussed    
#ace3c the evidence which he is supposed
 to contribute1 and it is unnecessary   
for me to enter into it at any length   
here1 more especially as ,dr4 ,lightfoot
 does not advance any new argument4 ,he 
has said nothing which materially alters
 the doubtful position of many of the   
fragments attributed to this ,father4   
,in any case the use which ,dr4         
,lightfoot chiefly makes of him as a    
witness is to show that ,melito exhibits
 full knowledge of the details of       
evangelical history as contained in the 
four canonical ,gospels4 ,waiving all   
discussion of the authenticity of the   
fragments1 and accepting1 for the sake  
of argument1 the asserted acquaintance  
with evangelical history which they     

display1 ,i simply enquire what this    
proves8 ,does anyone doubt that ,melito 
of ,sardis1 in the last third of the    
second century1 must have been          
thoroughly versed in ,gospel history1 or
 deny that he might have possessed our  
four ,gospels8 ,the only thing which is 
lacking is actual proof of the fact4    
,melito does not refer to a single      
,gospel by name4 ,he does not add one   
word or one fact to our knowledge of the
 ,gospels or their composers4 ,he does  
not1 indeed1 mention any writing of the 
,new ,testament4 ,if his words regarding
 the ,books of the ,old ,testament imply
 a corresponding ,christian literature  
which he regarded as the books of the   
,new ,testament1 #acf3a which ,i deny1  
what is gained8 ,even in that case we   
cannot1 as ,dr4 ,lardner frankly states1
 infer the names or the exact number of 
those books4 ,as for adding anything to 
the credibility of miracles1 such an    
idea is not even broached by ,dr4       
,lightfoot1 and yet if he cannot do this

 the only purpose for which his         
testimony is examined is gone4 ,the     
elaborate display of vehemence in       
discussing the authenticity of fragments
 of his writings merely distracts the   
attention of the reader from the true   
issue if1 when to his own satisfaction1 
,dr4 ,lightfoot cannot turn the evidence
 of ,melito to greater account4 #acf3b  
,nor is he much more fortunate in the   
case of ,claudius ,apollinaris1 #acg3a  
whose ,apology may be dated about ,a4,d4
 #agg-ahj4 ,in an extract preserved in  
the ,paschal ,chronicle1 regarding the  
genuineness of which all discussion may1
 for the sake of argument1 be waived    
here1 the writer in connection with the 
,paschal ,festival says that they affirm
 that ,matthew represents one thing and1
 on their showing1 the ,gospels seem to 
be at variance with one another4 #acg3b 
,if1 therefore1 the passage be genuine1 
the writer seems to refer to the first  
synoptic1 and by inference to the fourth
 ,gospel4 ,he says nothing of the       

composition of these works1 and he does 
nothing more than merely show that they 
were accepted in his time4 ,this may    
seem a good deal when we consider how   
very few of his contemporaries do as    
much1 but it really contributes nothing 
to our knowledge of the authors1 and    
does not add a jot to their credibility 
as witnesses for miracles and the       
reality of ,divine ,revelation4  ,with  
regard to ,polycrates of ,ephesus ,i    
need say very little4 ,eusebius         
preserves a passage from a letter which 
he wrote in the closing years of the    
second century1 #acg3c when ,victor of  
,rome attempted to force the ,western   
usage with respect to ,easter on the    
,asiatic ,christians4 ,in this he uses  
the expression he that leaned on the    
bosom of the ,lord1 which occurs in the 
fourth ,gospel4 ,nothing could more     
forcibly show the meagreness of our     
information regarding the ,gospels than 
that such a phrase is considered of     
value as evidence for one of them4 ,in  

fact the slightness of our knowledge of 
these works is perfectly astounding when
 the importance which is attached to    
them is taken into account4      ,,vi4  
,,the ,,churches ,,of ,,gaul4   ,a      
severe persecution broke out in the year
 ,a4,d4 #agg1 under ,marcus ,aurelius1  
in the cities of ,vienne and ,lyons1 on 
the ,rhone1 and an account of the       
martyrdoms which then took place was    
given in a letter from the persecuted   
communities1 addressed to the brethren  
that are in ,asia and ,phrygia4 ,this   
epistle is in great part preserved to us
 by ,eusebius 7,h4,e4 v4 #a71 and it is 
to a consideration of its contents that 
,dr4 ,lightfoot devotes his essay on the
 ,churches of ,gaul4 ,but for the sake  
of ascertaining clearly what evidence   
actually exists of the ,gospels1 it     
would have been of little utility to    
extend the enquiry in ,supernatural     
,religion to this document1 written     
nearly a century and a half after the   
death of ,jesus1 but it is instructive  

to show how exceedingly slight is the   
information we possess regarding those  
documents4 ,i may at once say that no   
writing of the ,new ,testament is       
directly referred to by name in this    
epistle1 and consequently any supposed  
quotations are merely inferred to be    
such by their similarity to passages    
found in these writings4 ,with the      
complete unconsciousness which ,i have  
pointed out that ,dr4 ,lightfoot affects
 regarding the object and requirements  
of my argument1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot is1 of  
course1 indignant that ,i will not      
accept as conclusive evidence the       
imperfect coincidences which alone he is
 able to bring forward4 ,i have         
elsewhere fully discussed these1 #adj3a 
and ,i need only refer to some portions 
of his essay here4      ,of ,vettius    
,epagathus1 one of the sufferers1 we are
 told that1     though young2 he        
'rivalled the testimony borne to the    
elder     ,zacharias 7,greek3           
sunexisousthai t tou presbuterou        

,zacharious     marturia71 for verily   
7,greek3 goun7 he had walked in all the 
commandments and ordinances of the ,lord
 blameless4' ,here we have     the same 
words1 and in the same order1 which are 
used of ,zacharias     and ,elizabeth in
 ,st4 ,luke 7i4 #f73 'and ,zacharias1   
his father1 was     filled with the     
,holy ,ghost4' #adj3b  ,dr4 ,lightfoot  
very properly dwells on the meaning of  
the expression the testimony of         
,zacharias 7,greek3 t ,zachariou        
marturia71 which he points out might    
signify either 'the testimony borne to  
,zacharias1' i4e4 his recorded          
character1 or 'the testimony borne by   
,zacharias1' i4e4 his martyrdom4 ,by a  
vexatious mistake in reprinting1 to was 
accidentally substituted for by in my   
translation of this passage in a very   
few of the earlier copies of my sixth   
edition1 but the error was almost       
immediately observed and corrected in   
the rest of the edition4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot
 seizes upon the to in the early copy   

which ,i had sent to him1 and argues    
upon it as a deliberate adoption of the 
interpretation1 whilst he takes me to   
task for actually arguing upon the      
rendering by in my text4 ,very naturally
 a printer's error could not extend to  
my argument4 ,the following is what ,i  
say regarding the passage in my complete
 edition3      ,the epistle is an       
account of the persecution of the       
,christian     community of ,vienne and 
,lyons1 and ,vettius ,epagathus is the  
first     of the martyrs who is named in
 it3 ,greek3 marturia was at that       
time the term used to express the       
supreme testimony of ,christians--      
martyrdom--and the epistle seems here   
simply to refer to the     martyrdom1   
the honour of which he shared with      
,zacharias4 ,it is1     we think1 highly
 improbable that1 under such            
circumstances1 the     word ,greek3     
marturia would have been used to express
 a mere     description of the character
 of ,zacharias given by some other      

writer4  ,this is the interpretation    
which is adopted by ,tischendorf1       
,hilgenfeld1 and many eminent critics4  
,it will be observed that the saying    
that he had walked in all the           
commandments and ordinances of the ,lord
 blameless1 which is supposed to be     
taken from ,luke i4 #f1 is there applied
 to ,zacharias and ,elizabeth1 the      
father and mother of ,john the ,baptist1
 but the ,gospel does not say anything  
of this ,zacharias having suffered      
martyrdom4 ,the allusion in ,luke xi4   
#ea 7,matt4 xxiii4 #ce7 is almost       
universally admitted to be to another   
,zacharias1 whose martyrdom is related  
in #b ,chron4 xxiv4 #ba4      ,since the
 epistle1 therefore1 refers to the      
martyrdom of ,zacharias1     the father 
of ,john the ,baptist1 when using the   
expressions which are     supposed to be
 taken from our third synoptic1 is it   
not reasonable     to suppose that those
 expressions were derived from some work
 which     likewise contained an account

 of his death1 which is not found in    
the synoptic8 ,when we examine the      
matter more closely we find that1       
although none of the canonical gospels  
except the third gives any     narrative
 of the birth of ,john the ,baptist1    
that portion of the     ,gospel in which
 are the words we are discussing cannot 
be considered     an original production
 by the third ,synoptist1 but1 like the 
rest of     his work1 is merely a       
composition based upon earlier written  
narratives4 ,ewald1 for instance1       
assigns the whole of the first          
chapters of ,luke 7i4 #e-;ii4 #dj7 to   
what he terms 'the eighth               
recognisable book4' #ada3a  ,no         
apologetic critic pretends that the     
author of the third ,gospel can have    
written this account from his own       
knowledge or observation4 ,where1 then1 
did he get his information8 ,surely not 
from oral tradition limited to himself4 
,the whole character of the narrative1  
even apart from the prologue to the     

,gospel1 and the composition of the rest
 of the work1 would lead us to infer a  
written source4      ,the fact that     
other works existed at an earlier period
 in which the     history of ,zacharias1
 the father of the ,baptist1 was given1 
and in     which not only the words used
 in the epistle were found1 but also    
the martyrdom1 is in the highest degree 
probable1 and1 so far as the     history
 is concerned1 this is placed almost    
beyond doubt by the     ',protevangelium
 ,jacobi1' which contains it4           
,tischendorf1 who does     not make use 
of this epistle at all as evidence for  
the ,scriptures     of the ,new         
,testament1 does refer to it1 and to    
this very allusion in     it to the     
martyrdom of ,zacharias1 as testimony to
 the existence and     use of the       
',protevangelium ,jacobi1' a work whose 
origin he dates so     far back as the  
first three decades of the second       
century1 and which     he considers was 
also used by ,justin1 as ,hilgenfeld had

 already     observed4 ,tischendorf and 
,hilgenfeld1 therefore1 agree in        
affirming     that the reference to     
,zacharias which we have quoted         
indicates     acquaintance with a       
,gospel different from our third        
synoptic4     #adb3a  ,such being the   
state of the case1 ,i would ask any     
impartial reader whether there is any   
evidence here that these few words1     
introduced without the slightest        
indication of the source from which they
 were derived1 must have been quoted    
from our third ,gospel1 and cannot have 
been taken from some one of the numerous
 evangelical works in circulation before
 that ,gospel was written4 ,the reply of
 everyone accustomed to weigh evidence  
must be that the words cannot even prove
 the existence of our synoptic at the   
time the letter was written4      ,but1 
if our author disposes of the           
coincidences with the third     ,gospel 
in this way 7proceeds ,dr4 ,lightfoot71 
what will he say to     those with the  

,acts8 ,in this same letter of the      
,gallican ,churches we     are told that
 the sufferers prayed for their         
persecutors 'like     ,stephen1 the     
perfect martyr1 ,lord1 lay not this sin 
to their     charge4' ,will he boldly   
maintain that the writers had before    
them     another ,acts1 containing words
 identical with our ,acts1 just as he   
supposes them to have had another       
,gospel1 containing words identical     
with our ,third ,gospel8 ,or1 will he   
allow this account to have been         
taken from ,acts vii4 #fj1 with which it
 coincides8 ,but in this latter         
case1 if they had the second treatise1  
which bears the name of ,st4     ,luke1 
in their hands1 why should they not have
 had the first also8     #adc3a  ,my    
reply to this is3      ,there is no     
mention of the ,acts of the ,apostles in
 the epistle1 and     the source from   
which the writers obtained their        
information about     ,stephen1 is1 of  
course1 not stated4 ,if there really was

 a martyr of     the name of ,stephen1  
and if these words were actually spoken 
by him1     the tradition of the fact1  
and the memory of his noble saying1 may 
well have remained in the ,church1 or   
have been recorded in writings     then 
current1 from one of which1 indeed1     
eminent critics 7as ,bleek1     ,ewald1 
,meyer1 ,neander1 ,de ,wette7 conjecture
 that the author of ,acts     derived   
his materials1 and in this case the     
passage obviously does     not prove the
 use of the ,acts4 ,if1 on the other    
hand1 there never     was such a martyr 
by whom the words were spoken1 and the  
whole story     must be considered an   
original invention by the author of     
,acts1     then1 in that case1 and in   
that case only1 the passage does show   
the     use of the ,acts4 ,supposing    
that the use of ,acts be held to be thus
     indicated1 what does this prove8   
,merely that the ',acts of the          
,apostles' were in existence in the year
 #agg-agh1 when the epistle of          

,vienne and ,lyons was written4 ,no     
light whatever would thus be thrown     
upon the question of its authorship2 and
 neither its credibility nor     its    
sufficiency to prove the reality of a   
cycle of miracles would be     in the   
slightest degree established4 #adc3b    
,apart from the question of the         
sufficiency of evidence actually under  
examination1 however1 ,i have never     
suggested1 much less asserted1 that the 
,acts of the ,apostles was not in       
existence at this date4 ,the only       
interest attachable to the question is1 
as ,i have before said1 the paucity of  
the testimony regarding the book1 to    
demonstrate which it has been necessary 
to discuss all such supposed allusions4 
,but the apologetic argument            
characteristically ignores the fact that
 many took in hand at an early date to  
set forth the ,christian story1 and that
 the books of our ,new ,testament did   
not constitute the whole of ,christian  
literature in circulation in the early  

days of the ,church4  ,i need not go    
with any minuteness into the alleged    
quotation from the fourth ,gospel4      
,there shall come a time in which       
whosoever killeth you will think that he
 doeth ,god service4 ,the ,gospel has3  
,there cometh an hour when1 c41 and1 as 
no source is named1 it is useless to    
maintain that the use of this ,gospel1  
and the impossibility of the use of any 
other1 is proved4 ,if even this were    
conceded1 the passage does not add one  
iota to our knowledge of the authorship 
and credibility of the ,gospel4 ,dr4    
,lightfoot says ,the author of          
,supernatural ,religion maintains1 on   
the other hand1 that only twelve years  
before1 at the outside1 the very ,church
 to which ,irenaeus belonged1 in a      
public document with which he was       
acquainted1 betrays no knowledge of our 
canonical ,gospels1 but quotes from one 
or more apocryphal ,gospels instead4 ,he
 maintains this though the quotations in
 question are actually found in our     

canonical ,gospels4 #add3a ,really1 ,dr4
 ,lightfoot betrays that he has not     
understood the argument1 which merely   
turns upon the insufficiency of the     
evidence to prove the use of particular 
documents1 whilst others existed which  
possibly1 or probably1 did contain      
similar passages to those in debate4    
,,vii4  ,,tatian',s ',,diatessaron4'    
,i need not reply at any length to ,dr4 
,lightfoot's essay on the ,diatessaron  
of ,tatian1 and ,i must refer those who 
wish to see what ,i had to say on the   
subject to ,supernatural ,religion4     
#ade3a ,i may here confine myself to    
remarks connected with fresh matter     
which has appeared since the publication
 of my work4  ,an ,armenian translation 
of what is alleged to be the ,commentary
 of ,ephraem ,syrus on ,tatian's        
,diatessaron was published as long ago  
as #ahcf1 but failed to attract critical
 attention4 ,in #ahgf1 however1 a ,latin
 translation of this work by ,aucher and
 ,moesinger was issued1 and this has    

now1 naturally introduced new elements  
into the argument regarding ,tatian's   
use of ,gospels4 ,only last year1 a     
still more important addition to        
critical materials was made by the      
publication in ,rome of an alleged      
,arabic version of ,tatian's            
,diatessaron itself1 with a ,latin      
translation by ,ciasca4 ,these works    
were not before ,dr4 ,lightfoot when he 
wrote his ,essay on ,tatian in #ahgg1   
and he only refers to them in a note in 
his present volume4 ,he entertains no   
doubt as to the genuineness of these    
works1 and he triumphantly claims that  
they establish the truth of the         
ecclesiastical theory regarding the     
,diatessaron of ,tatian4  ,in order to  
understand the exact position of the    
case1 however1 it will be well to state 
again what is known regarding ,tatian's 
work4 ,eusebius is the first writer who 
mentions it4 ,he says--and to avoid all 
dispute ,i give ,dr4 ,lightfoot's       
rendering3--      ,tatian composed a    

sort of connection and compilation1 ,i  
know not     how 7,greek3 ouk oid'      
hops71 of the ,gospels1 and called it   
,diatessaron4 ,this work is current in  
some quarters 7with some     persons7   
even to the present day4 #adf3a  ,i     
argued that this statement indicates    
that ,eusebius was not personally       
acquainted with the work in question1   
but speaks of it from mere hearsay4 ,dr4
 ,lightfoot replies--      ,his         
inference1 however1 from the expression 
',i know not how' is     altogether     
unwarranted4 ,so far from implying that 
,eusebius had no     personal knowledge 
of the work1 it is constantly used by   
writers in     speaking of books where  
they are perfectly acquainted with the  
contents1 but do not understand the     
principles1 or do not approve     the   
method4 ,in idiomatic ,english it       
signifies ',i cannot think what     he  
was about1' and is equivalent to        
'unaccountably1' 'absurdly1' so         
that1 if anything1 it implies knowledge 

rather than ignorance of the            
contents4 ,i have noticed at least      
twenty-six examples of its use in       
the treatise of ,origen against ,celsus 
alone1 #adf3b where it     commonly     
refers to ,celsus' work which he had    
before him1 and very     often to       
passages which he himself quotes in the 
context4 #adf3c  ,if this signification 
be also attached to the expression1 it  
is equally certain that ,greek3 ouk oid'
 hops is used to express ignorance1     
although ,dr4 ,lightfoot chooses1 for   
the sake of his argument1 to forget the 
fact4 ,in any case some of the best     
critics draw the same inference from the
 phrase here that ,i do1 more especially
 as ,eusebius does not speak further or 
more definitely of the ,diatessaron1    
amongst whom ,i may name ,credner1      
,hilgenfeld1 ,holtzmann1 ,reuss and     
,scholten2 and should these not have    
weight with him ,i may refer ,dr4       
,lightfoot to ,zahn1 #adg3a and even to 
,dr4 ,westcott #adg3b and ,professor    

,hemphill4 #adg3c ,eusebius says nothing
 more of the ,diatessaron of ,tatian and
 gives us no further help towards a     
recognition of the work4  ,dr4          
,lightfoot supposes that ,i had         
overlooked the testimony of the         
,doctrine of ,addai1 an apocryphal      
,syriac work1 published in #ahgf by ,dr4
 ,phillips after ,supernatural ,religion
 was written4 ,i did not overlook it1   
but ,i considered it of too little      
critical value to require much notice in
 later editions of the work4 ,the       
,doctrine of ,addai is conjecturally    
dated by ,dr4 ,lightfoot about the      
middle of the third century1 #adg3d and 
it might with greater certainty be      
placed much later4 ,the passage to which
 he points is one in which it is said   
that the new converts meet together to  
hear1 along with the ,old ,testament1   
the ,new of the ,diatessaron4 ,this is  
assumed to be ,tatian's ,harmony of the 
,gospels1 and ,i shall not further argue
 the point2 but does it bring us any    

nearer to a certain understanding of its
 character and contents8  ,the next     
witness1 taking them in the order in    
which ,dr4 ,lightfoot cites them1 is    
,dionysius ,bar-,salibi1 who flourished 
in the last years of the twelfth        
century4 ,in his commentary on the      
,gospels he writes3--      ,tatian1 the 
disciple of ,justin1 the philosopher and
 martyr1     selected and patched       
together from the four ,gospels and     
constructed     a gospel1 which he      
called ,diatessaron--that is1           
,miscellanies4     ,on this work ,mar   
,ephraem wrote an exposition2 and its   
commencement     was--,in the beginning 
was the ,word4 ,elias of ,salamia1 who  
is also     called ,aphthonius1         
constructed a gospel after the likeness 
of the     ,diatessaron of ,ammonius1   
mentioned by ,eusebius in his prologue  
to     the ,canons which he made for the
 ,gospel4 ,elias sought for that        
,diatessaron and could not find it1 and 
in consequence constructed     this     

after its likeness4 ,and the said ,elias
 finds fault with several     things in 
the ,canons of ,eusebius1 and points out
 errors in them1 and     rightly4 ,but  
this copy 7work7 which ,elias composed  
is not often met     with4 #adh3a  ,this
 information regarding ,ephraem--who    
died about ,a4,d4 #cgc--;be it          
remembered1 is given by a writer of the 
twelfth century1 and but for this we    
should not have known from any ancient  
independent source that ,ephraem had    
composed a commentary at all1 supposing 
that he did so4 ,it is important to     
note1 however1 that a second            
,diatessaron1 prepared by ,ammonius1 is 
here mentioned1 and that it was also    
described by ,eusebius in his ,epistle  
to ,carpianus1 and further that         
,bar-,salibi speaks of a third1 composed
 on the same lines by ,elias4 ,dr4      
,lightfoot disposes of the ,diatessaron 
of ,ammonius in a very decided way4 ,he 
says3      ,it was quite different in   
its character from the ,diatessaron of  

,tatian4 ,the ,diatessaron of ,tatian   
was a patchwork of the four             
,gospels1 commencing with the preface of
 ,st4 ,john4 ,the work of     ,ammonius 
took the ,gospel of ,st4 ,matthew as its
 standard1 preserving     its           
continuity1 and placed side by side with
 it parallel passages     from the other
 ,gospels4 ,the principle of the one was
 amalgamation2     of the other1        
comparison4 ,no one who had seen the two
 works could     confuse them1 though   
they bore the same name1 ,diatessaron4  
,eusebius keeps them quite distinct4 ,so
 does ,bar-,salibi4 ,later on in     his
 commentary1 we are told1 he quotes both
 works in the same     place4 #adh3b    
,doubtless1 no one comparing the two    
works here described could confuse them1
 but it is far from being so clear that 
anyone who had not seen more than one of
 these works could with equal certainty 
distinguish it4 ,the statement of ,dr4  
,lightfoot quoted above1 that the       
,diatessaron of ,ammonius took the      

,gospel of ,st4 ,matthew as its         
standard1 preserving its continuity1    
certainly does not tend to show that it 
was quite different in its character    
from the ,diatessaron of ,tatian1 on the
 supposition that the ,arabic           
translation lately published represents 
the work of ,tatian4 ,i will quote what 
,professor ,hemphill says regarding it1 
in preference to making any statement of
 my own3--      ,on examining the       
,diatessaron as translated into ,latin  
from this     ,arabic1 we find in by far
 the greater portion of it1 from the    
,sermon     on the ,mount to the ,last  
,supper 7 #cj-acd7 that ,tatian1 like   
his     brother harmonist ,ammonius1    
took ,st4 ,matthew as the basis of his  
work 444 ,st4 ,mark1 as might be        
expected1 runs parallel with ,st4       
,matthew in the ,diatessaron1 and is in 
a few cases the source out     of which 
incidents have been incorporated4 ,st4  
,luke1 on the other     hand1 is        
employed by ,tatian1 as also in a lesser

 degree is ,st4 ,john1     in complete  
defiance of chronological order4 #adi3a 
,this is not quite so different from the
 description of the ,diatessaron of     
,ammonius1 which ,dr4 ,lightfoot        
quotes3--      ,he placed side by side  
with the ,gospel according to ,matthew  
the     corresponding passages of the   
other ,evangelists1 so that as a        
necessary result the connection of      
sequence in the three was     destroyed 
so far as regards the order 7texture7 of
 reading4 #adi3b  ,the next witness     
cited is ,theodoret1 ,bishop of ,cyrus1 
writing about ,a4,d4 #dec1 and ,i need  
not quote the well-known passage in     
which he describes the suppression of   
some #bjj copies of ,tatian's work in   
his diocese1 which were in use not only 
among persons belonging to his sect1 but
 also among those who follow the        
,apostolic doctrine1 who did not        
perceive the heretical purpose of a book
 in which the genealogies and other     
passages showing the ,lord to have been 

born of the seed of ,david after the    
flesh were suppressed4 ,it is a fact1   
however1 which even ,zahn points out1   
that1 in the alleged ,diatessaron of    
,ephraem1 these passages are not all    
excised1 but still remain part of the   
text1 #aej3a as they also do in the     
,arabic translation4 ,this is the only  
definite information which we possess of
 the contents of the ,diatessaron beyond
 the opening words1 and it does not     
tally with the recently discovered      
works4  ,i need not further discuss here
 the statement of ,epiphanius that some 
called ,tatian's ,diatessaron the       
,gospel according to the ,hebrews4      
,epiphanius had not seen the work       
himself1 and he leaves us in the same   
ignorance as to its character4  ,it is  
clear from all this that we have no     
detailed information regarding the      
,diatessaron of ,tatian4 ,as ,dr4       
,donaldson said long ago3 ,we should not
 be able to identify it1 even if it did 
come down to us1 unless it told us      

something reliable about itself4 #aej3b 
,we may now come to the documents       
recently published4 ,the ,,ms4 of the   
,armenian version of the commentary     
ascribed to ,ephraem is dated ,a4,d4    
#aaie1 and ,moesinger declares that it  
is translated from the ,syriac1 of which
 it is said to retain many traces4      
#aej3c ,he states that in the judgment  
of the ,mechitarist ,fathers the        
translation dates from about the fifth  
century1 #aej3d but an opinion on such a
 point can only be received with great  
caution4 ,the name of ,tatian is not    
mentioned as the author of the ,harmony1
 and the question is open as to whether 
the authorship of the commentary is     
rightly ascribed to ,ephraem ,syrus4 ,in
 any case there can be no doubt that the
 ,armenian work is a translation4  ,the 
,arabic work published by ,ciasca1 and  
supposed to be a version of ,tatian's   
,diatessaron itself1 is derived from two
 manuscripts1 one belonging to the      
,vatican ,library and the other         

forwarded to ,rome from ,egypt by the   
,vicar ,apostolic of the ,catholic      
,copts4 ,the latter ,,ms4 states1 in    
notes at the beginning and end1 that it 
is an ,arabic translation of the        
,diatessaron of ,tatian1 made from the  
,syriac by the presbyter ,ab-l-,pharag  
,abdullah ,ben-at-,tib1 who is believed 
to have flourished in the first half of 
the eleventh century1 and in one of     
these notes the name of the scribe who  
wrote the ,syriac copy is given1 which  
leads to the conjecture that it may have
 been dated about the end of the ninth  
century4 ,a note in the ,vatican ,,ms4  
also ascribes the original work to      
,tatian4 ,these notes constitute the    
principal or only ground for connecting 
,tatian's name with the ,harmony4  ,so  
little is known regarding the           
,diatessaron of ,tatian that even the   
language in which it was written is     
matter of vehement debate4 ,the name    
would1 of course1 lead to the conclusion
 that it was a ,greek composition1 and  

many other circumstances support this1  
but the mere fact that it does not seem 
to have been known to ,greek ,fathers1  
and that it is very doubtful whether any
 of them1 with the exception of         
,theodoret1 had ever seen it1 has led   
many critics to maintain that it was    
written in ,syriac4 ,nothing but        
circumstantial evidence of this can be  
produced4 ,this alone shows how little  
we really know of the original4 ,the    
recently discovered works1 being in     
,arabic and ,armenian1 even supposing   
them to be translations from the ,syriac
 and that the ,diatessaron was composed 
in ,syriac1 can only indirectly         
represent the original1 and they        
obviously labour under fatal disability 
in regard to a restoration of the text  
of the documents at the basis of the    
work4 ,between doubtful accuracy of     
rendering and evident work of revision1 
the original matter cannot but be       
seriously disfigured4  ,it is certain   
that the name of ,tatian did not appear 

as the author of the ,diatessaron4      
#aeb3a ,this is obvious from the very   
nature of the composition and its       
object4 ,we have met with three works of
 this description and it is impossible  
to say how many more may not have       
existed4 ,as the most celebrated1 by    
name at least1 it is almost certain     
that1 as time went on and the identity  
of such works was lost1 the first idea  
of anyone meeting with such a ,harmony  
must have been that it was the          
,diatessaron of ,tatian4 ,what means    
could there be of correcting it and     
positively ascertaining the truth8 ,it  
is not as if such a work were a personal
 composition1 showing individuality of  
style and invention2 but supposing it to
 be a harmony of ,gospels already       
current1 and consequently varying from  
similar harmonies merely in details of  
compilation and arrangement1 how is it  
possible its authorship could remain in 
the least degree certain1 in the absence
 of an arranger's name8  ,an            

illustration of all this is aptly       
supplied in the case of ,victor of      
,capua1 and ,i will allow ,dr4          
,lightfoot himself to tell the story4   
,victor1 who flourished about ,a4,d4    
#ede1 happened to stumble upon an       
anonymous ,harmony or ,digest of the    
,gospels1 and began in consequence      
to investigate the authorship4 ,he found
 two notices in ,eusebius of     such   
,harmonies2 one in the ,epistle to      
,carpianus prefixed to the     canons1  
relating to the work of ,ammonius2      
another in the     ,ecclesiastical      
,history1 relating to that of ,tatian4  
,assuming that     the work which he had
 discovered must be one or other1 he    
decides in     favour of the latter1    
because it does not give ,st4 ,matthew  
continuously and append the passages of 
the other evangelists1 as     ,eusebius 
states ,ammonius to have done4 ,all this
 ,victor tells us in     the preface to 
this anonymous ,harmony1 which he       
publishes in a ,latin     dress4        

,there can be no doubt that ,victor was 
mistaken about the     authorship2 for  
though the work is constructed on the   
same general     plan as ,tatian's1 it  
does not begin with ,john i4 #a1 but    
with ,luke     i4 #a1 and it does       
contain the genealogies4 ,it belongs1   
therefore1     at least in its present  
form1 neither to ,tatian nor to         
,ammonius4     #aec3a  ,how this        
reasoning would have fallen to the      
ground had the ,harmonist1 as he might  
well have done in imitation of ,tatian1 
commenced with the words1 ,in the       
beginning was the ,word6 ,the most      
instructive part is still to come1      
however1 for although in ,may #ahhg ,dr4
 ,lightfoot says3 ,there can be no doubt
 that ,victor was mistaken about the    
authorship1 c41 in a note now inserted  
at the end of the essay1 after referring
 to the newly-discovered works1 he adds3
 ,on the relation of ,victor's          
,diatessaron1 which seems to be shown   
after all not to be independent of      

,tatian 444 ,see ,hemphill's            
,diatessaron4 #aec3b ,on turning to     
,professor ,hemphill's work1 the        
following passage on the point is       
discovered3--      ,it will be          
remembered that ,victor1 ,bishop of     
,capua1 in the year     #edc1 found a   
,latin ,harmony or compilation of the   
four ,gospels     without any name or   
title1 and being a man of enquiring mind
 he at     once set about the task of   
discovering its unknown author4 ,i have 
already mentioned the way in which1 from
 the passage of ,eusebius1 he     was   
led to ascribe his discovery to ,tatian4
 ,this conclusion was     generally     
traversed by ,church writers1 and       
,victor was supposed to     have made a 
mistake4 ,he is now1 however1 proved to 
have been a     better judge than his   
critics1 for1 as ,dr4 ,wace was the     
first to     point out1 a comparison of 
this ,latin ,harmony with the ,ephraem  
fragments demonstrates their substantial
 identity1 as they preserve     to a    

wonderful degree the same order1 and    
generally proceed pari     passu4 #aec3c
  ,but how about ,luke i4 #a as the     
beginning8 and the genealogies8 ,nothing
 could more clearly show the uncertainty
 which must always prevail about such   
works4 ,shall we one day discover that  
,victor was equally right about the     
reading ,diapente8  ,i have thought it  
worth while to go into all this with a  
view of showing how little we know of   
the ,diatessaron of ,tatian and1 ,i may 
add1 of the ,commentary of ,ephraem     
,syrus and the work on which it is      
based4 ,it is not at present necessary  
to examine more closely the text of     
either of the recently published works1 
but1 whilst leaving them to be tried by 
time1 ,i may clearly state what the     
effect on my argument would be on the   
assumption made by ,dr4 ,lightfoot that 
we have actually recovered the          
,diatessaron of ,tatian1 and that it is 
composed upon a text more or less       
corresponding with our four ,gospels4   

,neither in the ,harmony itself nor in  
the supposed ,commentary of ,ephraem    
,syrus is the name of any of the        
,evangelists mentioned1 and much less is
 there any information given as to their
 personality1 character1 or             
trustworthiness4 ,if these works were1  
therefore1 the veritable ,diatessaron of
 ,tatian and the ,commentary of ,ephraem
 upon it1 the ,gospels would not be     
rendered more credible as the record of 
miracles nor as witnesses for the       
reality of ,divine ,revelation4         
99       99       99       99       99  
,it may not be uninstructive if ,i take 
the liberty of quoting here some        
arguments of ,dr4 ,lightfoot regarding  
the authenticity of the ,letter of the  
,smyrnaens1 giving an account of the    
martyrdom of ,polycarp4 #aed3a      ,the
 miraculous element has also been urged 
in some quarters as an     objection to 
the genuineness of the document4 ,yet1  
considering all     the circumstances of
 the case1 we have more occasion to be  

surprised     at the comparative absence
 than at the special prominence of the  
supernatural in the narrative4 ,compared
 with records of early     ,christian   
martyrs1 or with biographies of         
mediaeval saints1 or with     notices of
 religious heroes at any great crisis1  
even in the more     recent history of  
the ,church--as1 for instance1 the rise 
of     ,jesuitism or of                 
,wesleyanism--this document contains    
nothing which     ought to excite a     
suspicion as to its authenticity4       
,the one miraculous incident1 which     
creates a real difficulty1 is     the   
dove issuing from the wounded side of   
the martyr4 ,yet even this     might be 
accounted for by an illusion1 and under 
any circumstances     it would be quite 
inadequate to condemn the document as a 
forgery4     ,but it will be shown      
hereafter 7p4 #fbg7 that there are      
excellent     reasons for regarding the 
incident as a later interpolation1 which
     had no place in the original       

document4 ,beyond this we have the voice
     from heaven calling to ,polycarp in
 the stadium to play the man 7 #i74     
,but the very simplicity of the         
narrative here disarms criticism4       
,the brethren present heard the voice1  
but no one saw the speaker4     ,this   
was the sole ground for the belief that 
it was not a human     utterance4       
,again1 there is the arching of the fire
 round the martyr     like a sail       
swelled by the wind 7 #ae74 ,but this   
may be explained as     a strictly      
natural occurrence1 and similar         
phenomena have been     witnessed more  
than once on like occasions1 notably at 
the     martyrdoms of ,savonarola and of
 ,hooper4 ,again1 there is the sweet    
scent1 as of incense1 issuing from the  
burning pyre 7 #ae72 but this           
phenomenon also1 however we may explain 
it1 whether from the     fragrance of   
the wood or in some other way1 meets us 
constantly4 ,in     another early record
 of martyrdoms1 the history of the      

persecutions     at ,vienne and ,lyons1 
a little more than twenty years later1  
we are     told 7,euseb4 ,h4,e4 v4 #a1  
#ce7 that the heroic martyrs1 as they   
stepped forward to meet their fate1 were
 'fragrant with the sweet     odour of  
,christ1 so that some persons even      
supposed that they had     been anointed
 with material ointment' 7,greek3 hste  
enious doxai     kai mur kosmik         
kechristhai autous74 ,yet there was no  
pyre and no     burning wood here1 so   
that the imagination of the bystanders  
must     have supplied the incident4    
,indeed1 this account of the ,gallican  
martyrs1 indisputably written by        
eye-witnesses1 contains many more       
startling occurrences than the record of
 ,polycarp's fate4      ,more or less   
closely connected with the miraculous   
element is the     prophetic insight    
attributed to ,polycarp4 ,but what does 
this     amount to8 ,it is stated indeed
 that 'every word which he uttered was  
accomplished and will be accomplished' 7

 #af74 ,but the future tense1     'will 
be accomplished1' is itself the         
expression of a belief1 not     the     
statement of a fact4 ,we may1 indeed1   
accept this qualification     as clear  
testimony that1 when the narrative was  
written1 many of his     forebodings and
 predictions had not been fulfilled4    
,the only example     of a prediction   
actually given in the narrative is the  
dream of his     burning pillow1 which  
suggested to him that he would undergo  
martyrdom by fire4 ,but what more       
natural than this presentiment1     when
 persecution was raging around him and  
fire was a common     instrument of     
death8 ,i need not stop here to discuss 
how far a     prescience may be         
vouchsafed to ,god's saints4 ,even 'old 
experience'     is found to be gifted   
with 'something like prophetic strain4' 
,it is     sufficient to say here again 
that it would be difficult to point to  
a single authentic biography of any     
,christian hero--certainly of any       

,christian hero of the early            
centuries--of whom some incident at     
least as remarkable as this prophecy1 if
 prophecy it can be called1     is not  
recorded4 ,pontius1 the disciple and    
biographer of ,cyprian1     relates a   
similar intimation which preceded the   
martyrdom of his     master1 and adds3  
',quid hac revelatione manifestius8 quid
 hac     dignatione felicius8 ante illi 
praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque         
postmodum subsecuta sunt4' 7,vit4 et    
,pass4 ,cypr4 #ab1 #ac7 #aef3a  ,i am   
the more anxious to quote this extract  
from a work1 written long after the     
essays on ,supernatural ,religion1 as it
 presents ,dr4 ,lightfoot in a very     
different light1 and gives me an        
opportunity of congratulating him on the
 apparent progress of his thought       
towards freedom which it exhibits4 ,i   
quite agree with him that the presence  
of supernatural or superstitious        
elements is no evidence against the     
authenticity of an early ,christian     

writing1 but the promptitude with which 
he sets these aside as interpolations1  
or explains them away into naturalism1  
is worthy of ,professor ,huxley4 ,he now
 understands1 without doubt1 the reason 
why ,i demand such clear and conclusive 
evidence of miracles1 and why ,i refuse 
to accept such narratives upon anonymous
 and insufficient testimony4 ,in fact1  
he cannot complain that ,i feel bound to
 explain all alleged miraculous         
occurrences precisely in the way of     
which he has set me so good an example1 
and that1 whilst feeling nothing but    
very sympathetic appreciation of the    
emotion which stimulated the imagination
 and devout reverence of early          
,christians to such mistakes1 ,i        
resolutely refuse to believe their pious
 aberrations4      ,,viii4              
,,conclusions4   ,we have seen that     
,divine ,revelation could only be       
necessary or conceivable for the purpose
 of communicating to us something which 
we could not otherwise discover1 and    

that the truth of communications which  
are essentially beyond and              
undiscoverable by reason cannot be      
attested in any other way than by       
miraculous signs distinguishing them as 
,divine4 ,it is admitted that no other  
testimony could justify our believing   
the specific ,revelation which we are   
considering1 the very substance of which
 is supernatural and beyond the         
criticism of reason1 and that its       
doctrines1 if not proved to be          
miraculous truths1 must inevitably be   
pronounced the wildest delusions4 ,by no
 rational being could a just and        
benevolent life be accepted as proof of 
such astonishing announcements4  ,on    
examining the alleged miraculous        
evidence for ,christianity as ,divine   
,revelation1 however1 we find that1 even
 if the actual occurrence of the        
supposed miracles could be              
substantiated1 their value as evidence  
would be destroyed by the necessary     
admission that miracles are not limited 

to one source and are not exclusively   
associated with truth1 but are performed
 by various spiritual ,beings1 ,satanic 
as well as ,divine1 and are not always  
evidential1 but are sometimes to be     
regarded as delusive and for the trial  
of faith4 ,as the doctrines supposed to 
be revealed are beyond ,reason1 and     
cannot in any sense be intelligently    
approved by the human intellect1 no     
evidence which is of so doubtful and    
inconclusive a nature could sufficiently
 attest them4 ,this alone would         
disqualify the ,christian miracles for  
the duty which miracles alone are       
capable of performing4  ,the supposed   
miraculous evidence for the ,divine     
,revelation1 moreover1 is not only      
without any special ,divine character1  
being avowedly common also to ,satanic  
agency1 but it is not original either in
 conception or details4 ,similar        
miracles are reported long antecedently 
to the first promulgation of            
,christianity1 and continued to be      

performed for centuries after it4 ,a    
stream of miraculous pretension1 in     
fact1 has flowed through all human      
history1 deep and broad as it has passed
 through the darker ages1 but dwindling 
down to a thread as it has entered days 
of enlightenment4 ,the evidence was too 
hackneyed and commonplace to make any   
impression upon those before whom the   
,christian miracles are said to have    
been performed1 and it altogether failed
 to convince the people to whom the     
,revelation was primarily addressed4    
,the selection of such evidence for such
 a purpose is much more characteristic  
of human weakness than of ,divine power4
  ,the true character of miracles is at 
once betrayed by the fact that their    
supposed occurrence has thus been       
confined to ages of ignorance and       
superstition1 and that they are         
absolutely unknown in any time or place 
where science has provided witnesses    
fitted to appreciate and ascertain the  
nature of such exhibitions of           

supernatural power4 ,there is not the   
slightest evidence that any attempt was 
made to investigate the supposed        
miraculous occurrences1 or to justify   
the inferences so freely drawn from     
them1 nor is there any reason to believe
 that the witnesses possessed1 in any   
considerable degree1 the fulness of     
knowledge and sobriety of judgment      
requisite for the purpose4 ,no miracle  
has yet established its claim to the    
rank even of apparent reality1 and all  
such phenomena must remain in the dim   
region of imagination4 ,the test applied
 to the largest class of miracles1      
connected with demoniacal possession1   
discloses the falsity of all miraculous 
pretension4  ,there is no uncertainty as
 to the origin of belief in supernatural
 interference with nature4 ,the         
assertion that spurious miracles have   
sprung up round a few instances of      
genuine miraculous power has not a      
single valid argument to support it4    
,history clearly demonstrates that1     

wherever ignorance and superstition have
 prevailed1 every obscure occurrence has
 been attributed to supernatural agency1
 and it is freely acknowledged that1    
under their influence1 'inexplicable'   
and 'miraculous' are convertible terms4 
,on the other hand1 in proportion as    
knowledge of natural laws has increased1
 the theory of supernatural interference
 with the order of nature has been      
dispelled and miracles have ceased4 ,the
 effect of science1 however1 is not     
limited to the present and future1 but  
its action is equally retrospective1 and
 phenomena which were once ignorantly   
isolated from the sequence of natural   
cause and effect are now restored to    
their place in the unbroken order4      
,ignorance and superstition created     
miracles2 knowledge has for ever        
annihilated them4  ,to justify miracles1
 two assumptions are made3 first1 an    
,infinite ,personal ,god2 and second1 a 
,divine design of ,revelation1 the      
execution of which necessarily involves 

supernatural action4 ,miracles1 it is   
argued1 are not contrary to nature1 or  
effects produced without adequate       
causes1 but on the contrary are caused  
by the intervention of this ,infinite   
,personal ,god for the purpose of       
attesting and carrying out the ,divine  
design4 ,neither of the assumptions1    
however1 can be reasonably maintained4  
,the assumption of an ,infinite         
,personal ,god3 a ,being at once limited
 and unlimited1 is a use of language to 
which no mode of human thought can      
possibly attach itself4 ,moreover1 the  
assumption of a ,god working miracles is
 emphatically excluded by universal     
experience of the order of nature4 ,the 
allegation of a specific ,divine cause  
of miracles is further inadequate from  
the fact that the power of working      
miracles is avowedly not limited to a   
,personal ,god1 but is also ascribed to 
other spiritual ,beings1 and it must1   
consequently1 always be impossible to   
prove that the supposed miraculous      

phenomena originate with one and not    
with the other4 ,on the other hand1 the 
assumption of a ,divine design of       
,revelation is not suggested by         
antecedent probability1 but is derived  
from the very ,revelation which it is   
intended to justify1 as is likewise the 
assumption of a ,personal ,god1 and both
 are equally vicious as arguments4 ,the 
circumstances which are supposed to     
require this ,divine design1 and the    
details of the scheme1 are absolutely   
incredible and opposed to all the       
results of science4 ,nature does not    
countenance any theory of the original  
perfection and subsequent degradation of
 the human race1 and the supposition of 
a frustrated original plan of creation1 
and of later impotent endeavours to     
correct it1 is as inconsistent with     
,divine omnipotence and wisdom as the   
proposed punishment of the human race   
and the mode devised to save some of    
them are opposed to justice and         
morality4 ,such assumptions are         

essentially inadmissible1 and totally   
fail to explain and justify miracles4   
,whatever definition be given of        
miracles1 such exceptional phenomena    
must at least be antecedently           
incredible4 ,in the absence of absolute 
knowledge1 human belief must be guided  
by the balance of evidence1 and it is   
obvious that the evidence for the       
uniformity of the order of nature1 which
 is derived from universal experience1  
must be enormously greater than can be  
the testimony for any alleged exception 
to it4 ,on the other hand1 universal    
experience prepares us to consider      
mistakes of the senses1 imperfect       
observation and erroneous inference as  
not only possible1 but eminently        
probable on the part of the witnesses of
 phenomena1 even when they are perfectly
 honest and truthful1 and more          
especially so when such disturbing      
causes as religious excitement and      
superstition are present4 ,when the     
report of the original witnesses only   

reaches us indirectly and through the   
medium of tradition1 the probability of 
error is further increased4 ,thus the   
allegation of miracles is discredited1  
both positively by the invariability of 
the order of nature1 and negatively by  
the fallibility of human observation and
 testimony4 ,the history of miraculous  
pretension in the world and the         
circumstances attending the special     
exhibition of it which we are examining 
suggest natural explanations of the     
reported facts which wholly remove them 
from the region of the supernatural4    
,when we proceed to examine the direct  
witnesses for the ,christian miracles1  
we do not discover any exceptional      
circumstances neutralising the preceding
 considerations4 ,on the contrary1 we   
find that the case turns not upon       
miracles substantially before us1 but   
upon the mere narratives of miracles    
said to have occurred over eighteen     
hundred years ago4 ,it is obvious that1 
for such narratives to possess any real 

force and validity1 it is essential that
 their character and authorship should  
be placed beyond all doubt4 ,they must  
proceed from eye-witnesses capable of   
estimating aright the nature of the     
phenomena4 ,our four ,gospels1 however1 
are strictly anonymous works4 ,the      
superscriptions which now distinguish   
them are undeniably of later origin than
 the works themselves and do not proceed
 from the composers of the ,gospels4 ,of
 the writers to whom these narratives   
are traditionally ascribed only two are 
even said to have been apostles1 the    
alleged authors of the second and third 
,synoptics neither having been personal 
followers of ,jesus nor eye-witnesses of
 the events they describe4 ,under these 
circumstances1 we are wholly dependent  
upon external evidence for information  
regarding the authorship and            
trustworthiness of the four canonical   
,gospels4  ,in examining this evidence1 
we proceeded upon clear and definite    
principles4 ,without forming or adopting

 any theory whatever as to the date or  
origin of our ,gospels1 we simply       
searched the writings of the ,fathers1  
during a century and a half after the   
events in question1 for information     
regarding the composition and character 
of these works and even for any certain 
traces of their use1 although1 if       
discovered1 these could prove little    
beyond the mere existence of the        
,gospels used at the date of the writer4
 ,in the latter and minor investigation1
 we were guided by canons of criticism1 
previously laid down1 which are based   
upon the simplest laws of evidence4 ,we 
found that the writings of the ,fathers1
 during a century and a half after the  
death of ,jesus1 are a complete blank so
 far as any evidence regarding the      
composition and character of our        
,gospels is concerned1 unless we except 
the tradition preserved by ,papias1     
after the middle of the second century1 
the details of which fully justify the  
conclusion that our first and second    

,synoptics1 in their present form1      
cannot be the works said to have been   
composed by ,matthew and ,mark4 ,there  
is thus no evidence whatever directly   
connecting any of the canonical ,gospels
 with the writers to whom they are      
popularly attributed1 and later         
tradition1 of little or no value in     
itself1 is separated by a long interval 
of profound silence from the epoch at   
which they are supposed to have been    
composed4 ,with one exception1 moreover1
 we found that1 during the same century 
and a half1 there is no certain and     
unmistakable trace even of the anonymous
 use of any of our ,gospels in the early
 ,church4 ,this fact1 of course1 does   
not justify the conclusion that none of 
these ,gospels was actually in existence
 during any part of that time1 nor have 
we anywhere suggested such an inference1
 but strict examination of the evidence 
shows that there is no positive proof   
that they were4 ,the exception to which 
we refer is ,marcion's ,gospel1 which   

was1 we think1 based upon our third     
,synoptic1 and consequently must be     
accepted as evidence of the existence of
 that work4 ,marcion1 however1 does not 
give the slightest information as to the
 authorship of the ,gospel1 and his     
charges against it of adulteration      
cannot be considered very favourable    
testimony as to its infallible          
character4 ,the canonical ,gospels      
continue to the end anonymous documents 
of no evidential value for miracles4    
,they do not themselves pretend to be   
inspired histories1 and they cannot     
escape from the ordinary rules of       
criticism4 ,internal evidence does not  
modify the inferences from external     
testimony4 ,apart from continual minor  
contradictions throughout the first     
three ,gospels1 it is impossible to     
reconcile the representations of the    
,synoptics with those of the fourth     
,gospel4 ,they mutually destroy each    
other as evidence4 ,they must be        
pronounced mere narratives compiled long

 after the events recorded1 by unknown  
persons who were neither eye-witnesses  
of the alleged miraculous occurrences   
nor hearers of the statements they      
profess to report4 ,they cannot be      
accepted as adequate testimony for      
miracles and the reality of ,divine     
,revelation4  ,applying similar tests to
 the ,acts of the ,apostles we arrived  
at similar results4 ,acknowledged to be 
composed by the same author who produced
 the third ,synoptic1 that author's     
identity is not thereby made more clear4
 ,there is no evidence of the slightest 
value regarding its character1 but1 on  
the other hand1 the work itself teems to
 such an extent with miraculous         
incidents and supernatural agency that  
the credibility of the narrative        
requires an extraordinary amount of     
attestation to secure for it any serious
 consideration4 ,when the statements of 
the author are compared with the        
emphatic declarations of the ,apostle   
,paul and with authentic accounts of the

 development of the early ,christian    
,church1 it becomes evident that the    
,acts of the ,apostles1 as might have   
been supposed1 is a legendary           
composition of a later day1 which cannot
 be regarded as sober and credible      
history1 and rather discredits than     
tends to establish the reality of the   
miracles with which its pages so        
suspiciously abound4  ,the remaining    
books of the ,new ,testament ,canon     
required no separate examination1       
because1 even if genuine1 they contain  
no additional testimony to the reality  
of ,divine ,revelation1 beyond the      
implied belief in such doctrines as the 
,incarnation and ,resurrection4 ,it is  
unquestionable1 we suppose1 that in some
 form or other the ,apostles believed in
 these miracles1 and the assumption that
 they did so supersedes the necessity   
for examining the authenticity of the   
,catholic ,epistles and ,apocalypse4 ,in
 like manner1 the recognition as genuine
 of four ,epistles of ,paul1 which      

contain his testimony to miracles1      
renders it superfluous to discuss the   
authenticity of the other letters       
attributed to him4  ,the general belief 
in miraculous power and its possession  
by the ,church is brought to a practical
 test in the case of the ,apostle ,paul4
 ,after elaborate consideration of his  
letters1 we came to the unhesitating    
conclusion that1 instead of establishing
 the reality of miracles1 the           
unconscious testimony of ,paul clearly  
demonstrates the facility with which    
erroneous inferences convert the most   
natural phenomena into supernatural     
occurrences4  ,as a final test1 we      
carefully examined the whole of the     
evidence for the cardinal dogmas of     
,christianity1 the ,resurrection and    
,ascension of ,jesus4 ,first taking the 
four ,gospels1 we found that their      
accounts of these events are not only   
full of legendary matter1 but even      
contradict and exclude each other and1  
so far from establishing the reality of 

such stupendous miracles1 they show that
 no reliance is to be placed on the     
statements of the unknown authors4      
,taking next the testimony of ,paul1    
which is more important as at least     
authentic and proceeding from an        
,apostle of whom we know more than of   
any other of the early missionaries of  
,christianity1 we saw that it was       
indefinite and utterly insufficient4    
,his so-called circumstantial account of
 the testimony upon which the belief in 
the ,resurrection rested consists merely
 of vague and undetailed hearsay1       
differing1 so far as it can be compared1
 from the statements in the ,gospels1   
and without other attestation than the  
bare fact that it is repeated by ,paul1 
who doubtless believed it1 although he  
had not himself been a witness of any of
 the supposed appearances of the risen  
,jesus which he so briefly catalogues4  
,paul's own personal testimony to the   
,resurrection is limited to a vision of 
,jesus1 of which we have no authentic   

details1 seen many years after the      
alleged miracle4 ,considering the       
peculiar and highly nervous temperament 
of ,paul1 of which he himself supplies  
abundant evidence1 there can be no      
hesitation in deciding that this vision 
was purely subjective1 as were likewise1
 in all probability1 the appearances to 
the excited disciples of ,jesus4 ,the   
testimony of ,paul himself1 before his  
imagination was stimulated to ecstatic  
fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised
 religion1 was an earnest denial of the 
great ,christian dogma1 emphasised by   
the active persecution of those who     
affirmed it2 and a vision1 especially in
 the case of one so constituted1        
supposed to be seen many years after the
 fact of the ,resurrection had ceased to
 be capable of verification1 is not an  
argument of convincing force4 ,we were  
compelled to pronounce the evidence for 
the ,resurrection and ,ascension        
absolutely and hopelessly inadequate to 
prove the reality of such stupendous    

miracles1 which must consequently be    
unhesitatingly rejected4 ,there is no   
reason given1 or even conceivable1 why  
allegations such as these1 and dogmas   
affecting the religion and even the     
salvation of the human race1 should be  
accepted upon evidence which would be   
declared totally insufficient in the    
case of any common question of property 
or title before a legal tribunal4 ,on   
the contrary1 the more momentous the    
point to be established1 the more       
complete must be the proof required4    
,if we test the results at which we have
 arrived by general considerations1 we  
find them everywhere confirmed and      
established4 ,there is nothing original 
in the claim of ,christianity to be     
regarded as ,divine ,revelation1 and    
nothing new either in the doctrines said
 to have been revealed1 or in the       
miracles by which it is alleged to have 
been distinguished4 ,there has not been 
a single historical religion largely    
held amongst men which has not pretended

 to be divinely revealed1 and the       
written books of which have not been    
represented as directly inspired4 ,there
 is not a doctrine1 sacrament1 or rite  
of ,christianity which has not          
substantially formed part of earlier    
religions2 and not a single phase of the
 supernatural history of the ,christ1   
from his miraculous conception1 birth   
and incarnation to his death1           
resurrection1 and ascension1 which has  
not had its counterpart in earlier      
mythologies4 ,heaven and hell1 with     
characteristic variation of details1    
have held an important place in the     
eschatology of many creeds and races4   
,the same may be said even of the moral 
teaching of ,christianity1 the elevated 
precepts of which1 although in a less   
perfect and connected form1 had already 
suggested themselves to many noble minds
 and been promulgated by ancient sages  
and philosophers4 ,that this ,enquiry   
into the reality of ,divine ,revelation 
has been limited to the claim of        

,christianity has arisen solely from a  
desire to condense it within reasonable 
bounds1 and confine it to the only      
,religion in connection with which it   
could practically interest us now4      
,there is nothing in the history and    
achievements of ,christianity which can 
be considered characteristic of a       
,religion ,divinely revealed for the    
salvation of mankind4 ,originally said  
to have been communicated to a single   
nation1 specially selected as the       
peculiar people of ,god1 for whom       
distinguished privileges were said to be
 reserved1 it was almost unanimously    
rejected by that nation at the time and 
it has continued to be repudiated by its
 descendants1 with singular unanimity1  
to the present day4 ,after more than    
eighteen centuries1 this ,divine scheme 
of salvation has not obtained even the  
nominal adhesion of more than a third of
 the human race1 and if1 in a census of 
,christendom1 distinction could now be  
made of those who no longer seriously   

believe in it as ,supernatural          
,religion1 ,christianity would take a   
much lower numerical position4 ,skya    
,muni1 a teacher only second in nobility
 of character to ,jesus1 who1 like him1 
proclaimed a system of elevated         
morality1 has even now almost twice the 
number of followers1 although his       
missionaries never sought converts in   
the ,west4 #afh3a ,considered as a      
scheme ,divinely devised as the best1 if
 not only1 mode of redeeming the human  
race and saving them from eternal       
damnation1 promulgated by ,god himself  
incarnate in human form1 and completed  
by his own actual death upon the cross  
for the sins of the world1 such results 
as these can only be regarded as        
practical failure1 although they may not
 be disproportionate for a system of    
elevated morality4  ,we shall probably  
never be able to determine how far the  
great ,teacher may through his own      
speculations or misunderstood spiritual 
utterances have suggested the           

supernatural doctrines subsequently     
attributed to him1 and by which his     
whole history and system soon became    
transformed2 but no one who attentively 
studies the subject can fail to be      
struck by the absence of such dogmas    
from the earlier records of his         
teaching4 ,it is to the excited         
veneration of the followers of ,jesus1  
however1 that we owe most of the        
supernatural elements so characteristic 
of the age and people4 ,we may look in  
vain even in the synoptic ,gospels for  
the doctrines elaborated in the ,pauline
 ,epistles and the ,gospel of ,ephesus4 
,the great transformation of            
,christianity was effected by men who   
had never seen ,jesus1 and who were only
 acquainted with his teaching after it  
had become transmuted by tradition4 ,the
 fervid imagination of the ,east        
constructed ,christian theology4 ,it is 
not difficult to follow the development 
of the creeds of the ,church1 and it is 
certainly most instructive to observe   

the progressive boldness with which its 
dogmas were expanded by pious           
enthusiasm4 ,the ,new ,testament alone  
represents several stages of dogmatic   
evolution4 ,before his first followers  
had passed away the process of          
transformation had commenced4 ,the      
disciples1 who had so often             
misunderstood the teaching of ,jesus    
during his life1 piously distorted it   
after his death4 ,his simple lessons of 
meekness and humility were soon         
forgotten4 ,with lamentable rapidity1   
the elaborate structure of              
ecclesiastical ,christianity1 following 
stereotyped lines of human superstition 
and deeply coloured by ,alexandrian     
philosophy1 displaced the sublime       
morality of ,jesus4 ,doctrinal          
controversy1 which commenced amongst the
 very ,apostles1 has ever since divided 
the unity of the ,christian body4 ,the  
perverted ingenuity of successive       
generations of churchmen has filled the 
world with theological quibbles1 which  

have naturally enough culminated of late
 in doctrines of ,immaculate ,conception
 and ,papal ,infallibility4  ,it is     
sometimes affirmed1 however1 that those 
who proclaim such conclusions not only  
wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of   
humanity1 but remove the only solid     
basis of morality2 and it is alleged    
that1 before existing belief is         
disturbed1 the iconoclast is bound to   
provide a substitute for the shattered  
idol4 ,to this we may reply that speech 
or silence does not alter the reality of
 things4 ,the recognition of ,truth     
cannot be made dependent on             
consequences1 or be trammelled by       
considerations of spurious expediency4  
,its declaration in a serious and       
suitable manner to those who are capable
 of judging can never be premature4 ,its
 suppression cannot be effectual1 and is
 only a humiliating compromise with     
conscious imposture4 ,in so far as      
morality is concerned1 belief in a      
system of future rewards and            

punishments1 although of an intensely   
degraded character1 may1 to a certain   
extent1 have promoted observance of the 
letter of the law in darker ages and    
even in our own2 but it may1 we think1  
be shown that education and civilisation
 have done infinitely more to enforce   
its spirit4 ,how far ,christianity has  
promoted education and civilisation1 we 
shall not here venture adequately to    
discuss4 ,we may emphatically assert1   
however1 that whatever beneficial effect
 ,christianity has produced has been    
due1 not to its supernatural dogmas1 but
 to its simple morality4 ,dogmatic      
,theology1 on the contrary1 has retarded
 education and impeded science4         
,wherever it has been dominant1         
civilisation has stood still4 ,science  
has been judged and suppressed by the   
light of a text or a chapter of         
,genesis4 ,almost every great advance   
which has been made towards             
enlightenment has been achieved in spite
 of the protest or the anathema of the  

,church4 ,submissive ignorance1 absolute
 or comparative1 has been tacitly       
fostered as the most desirable condition
 of the popular mind4 ,except ye be     
converted1 and become as little         
children1 ye shall not enter into the   
kingdom of heaven1 has been the         
favourite text of ,doctors of ,divinity 
with a stock of incredible dogmas       
difficult of assimilation by the virile 
mind4 ,even now1 the friction of        
theological resistance is a constant    
waste of intellectual power4 ,the early 
enunciation of so pure a system of      
morality1 and one so intelligible to the
 simple as well as profound to the wise1
 was of great value to the world2 but1  
experience being once systematised and  
codified1 if higher principles do not   
constrain us1 society may safely be left
 to see morals sufficiently observed4   
,it is true that1 notwithstanding its   
fluctuating rules1 morality has hitherto
 assumed the character of a ,divine     
institution1 but its sway has not1 in   

consequence1 been more real than it must
 be as the simple result of human wisdom
 and the outcome of social experience4  
,the choice of a noble life is no longer
 a theological question1 and            
ecclesiastical patents of truth and     
uprightness have finally expired4       
,morality1 which has ever changed its   
complexion and modified its injunctions 
according to social requirements1 will  
necessarily be enforced as part of human
 evolution1 and is not dependent on     
religious terrorism or superstitious    
persuasion4 ,if we are disposed to say3 
,cui bono8 and only practise morality1  
or be ruled by right principles1 to gain
 a heaven or escape a hell1 there is    
nothing lost1 for such grudging and     
calculated morality is merely a spurious
 imitation which can as well be produced
 by social compulsion4 ,but if we have  
ever been really penetrated by the pure 
spirit of morality1 if we have in any   
degree attained that elevation of mind  
which instinctively turns to the true   

and noble and shrinks from the baser    
level of thought and action1 we shall   
feel no need of the stimulus of a system
 of rewards and punishments in a future 
state which has for so long been        
represented as essential to             
,christianity4  ,as to the other        
reproach1 let us ask what has actually  
been destroyed by such an enquiry       
pressed to its logical conclusion4 ,can 
,truth by any means be made less true8  
,can reality be melted into thin air8   
,the ,revelation not being a reality1   
that which has been destroyed is only an
 illusion1 and that which is left is the
 ,truth4 ,losing belief in it and its   
contents1 we have lost absolutely       
nothing but that which the traveller    
loses when the mirage1 which has        
displayed cool waters and green shades  
before him1 melts swiftly away4 ,there  
were no cool fountains really there to  
allay his thirst1 no flowery meadows for
 his wearied limbs2 his pleasure was    
delusion1 and the wilderness is blank4  

,rather the mirage with its pleasant    
illusion1 is the human cry1 than the    
desert with its barrenness4 ,not so1 is 
the friendly warning2 seek not vainly in
 the desert that which is not there1 but
 turn rather to other horizons and to   
surer hopes4 ,do not waste life clinging
 to ecclesiastical dogmas which         
represent no eternal verities1 but      
search elsewhere for truth which may    
haply be found4 ,what should we think of
 the man who persistently repulsed the  
persuasion that two and two make four   
from the ardent desire to believe that  
two and two make five8 ,whose fault is  
it that two and two do make four and not
 five8 ,whose folly is it that it should
 be more agreeable to think that two and
 two make five than to know that they   
only make four8 ,this folly is theirs   
who represent the value of life as      
dependent on the reality of special     
illusions1 which they have religiously  
adopted4 ,to discover that a former     
belief is unfounded is to change nothing

 of the realities of existence4 ,the sun
 will descend as it passes the meridian 
whether we believe it to be noon or not4
 ,it is idle and foolish1 if human1 to  
repine because the truth is not         
precisely what we thought it1 and at    
least we shall not change reality by    
childishly clinging to a dream4  ,the   
argument so often employed by           
theologians that ,divine ,revelation is 
necessary for man1 and that certain     
views contained in that ,revelation are 
required by our moral consciousness1 is 
purely imaginary and derived from the   
,revelation which it seeks to maintain4 
,the only thing absolutely necessary for
 man is ,truth2 and to that1 and that   
alone1 must our moral consciousness     
adapt itself4 ,reason and experience    
forbid the expectation that we can      
acquire any knowledge otherwise than    
through natural channels4 ,we might as  
well expect to be supernaturally        
nourished as supernaturally informed4   
,to complain that we do not know all    

that we desire to know is foolish and   
unreasonable4 ,it is tantamount to      
complaining that the mind of man is not 
differently constituted4 ,to attain the 
full altitude of the ,knowable1 whatever
 that may be1 should be our earnest aim1
 and more than this is not for humanity4
 ,we may be certain that information    
which is beyond the ultimate reach of   
,reason is as unnecessary as it is      
inaccessible4 ,man may know all that man
 requires to know4  ,we gain more than  
we lose by awaking to find that our     
,theology is human invention and our    
eschatology an unhealthy dream4 ,we are 
freed from the incubus of base ,hebrew  
mythology1 and from doctrines of ,divine
 government which outrage morality and  
set cruelty and injustice in the place  
of holiness4 ,if we have to abandon     
cherished anthropomorphic visions of    
future ,blessedness1 the details of     
which are either of unseizable dimness  
or of questionable joy1 we are at least 
delivered from quibbling discussions of 

the meaning of ,greek3 ainios1 and our  
eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt  
whether mankind is to be tortured in    
hell for ever and a day1 or for a day   
without the ever4 ,at the end of life   
there may be no definite vista of a     
,heaven glowing with the light of       
apocalyptic imagination1 but neither    
will there be the unutterable horror of 
a ,purgatory or a ,hell lurid with      
flames for the helpless victims of an   
unjust but omnipotent ,creator4 ,to     
entertain such libellous representations
 at all as part of the contents of      
,divine ,revelation1 it was necessary to
 assert that man was incompetent to     
judge of the ways of the ,god of        
,revelation1 and must not suppose him   
endowed with the perfection of human    
conceptions of justice and mercy1 but   
submit to call wrong right and right    
wrong at the foot of an almighty        
,despot4 ,but now the reproach of such  
reasoning is shaken from our shoulders1 
and returns to the ,jewish superstition 

from which it sprang4  ,as myths lose   
their might and their influence when    
discovered to be baseless1 the power of 
supernatural ,christianity will         
doubtless pass away1 but the effect of  
the revolution must not be exaggerated1 
although it cannot here be fully        
discussed4 ,if the pictures which have  
filled for so long the horizon of the   
,future must vanish1 no hideous blank   
can rightly be maintained in their      
place4 ,we should clearly distinguish   
between what we know and know not1 but  
as carefully abstain from characterising
 that which we know not as if it were   
really known to us4 ,that mysterious    
,unknown or ,unknowable is no cruel     
darkness1 but simply an impenetrable    
distance into which we are impotent to  
glance1 but which excludes no legitimate
 speculation and forbids no reasonable  
hope4      ,,endnotes   #a3a ,originally
 published in the ,fortnightly ,review1 
,january #a1 #ahge4  #d3a ,on the       
,canon1 p4 #fe4  #d3b ,ibid4 p4 #fa1    

note #b4  #d3c ,at the end of this note 
,dr4 ,westcott adds1 ,indeed1 from the  
similar mode of introducing the story of
 the vine1 which is afterwards referred 
to ,papias1 it is reasonable to         
conjecture that this interpretation is  
one from ,papias' ,exposition4  #d3d    
,reliq4 ,sacrae1 i4 p4 #aj f4  #d3e     
,lehre ,pers4 ,christ1 i4 p4 #bag f41   
,anm4 #ef1 p4 #bah1 ,anm1 #fb4  #e3a    
,theol4 ,jahrb4 #ahde1 p4 #eic1 ,anm4   
#b2 cf4 #ahdg1 p4 #afj1 ,anm4 #a4  #e3b 
,synops4 ,evang41 ,proleg4 xxxi4  #e3c  
,komm4 ,ev4 des ,johannes1 p4 #f f4     
#e3d ,die ,zeugn4 ,ev4 ,joh4 p4 #aaf f4 
#e3e ,basilides1 p4 #aaj f4  #e3f       
,zeitschr4 fr wiss4 ,theol4 #ahfg1 p4   
#ahf1 ,anm4 #a1 #ahfh1 p4 #bai1 ,anm4   
#d2 cf4 #ahfe1 p4 #ccd f41 ,die         
,evangelien1 p4 #cci1 ,anm4 #d4  #f3a   
,der ,johann4 ,ursprung des viert4      
,evang4 #ahgd1 p4 #gb4  #f3b ,th4 ,stud4
 u4 ,krit4 #ahff1 p4 #fgd4  #f3c ,intro4
 ,n4,t4 ii4 p4 #dbd f4  #f3d ,ibid4 ii4 
p4 #cgb4  #h3a ,the work was all        

printed1 and ,i could only reprint the  
sheet with such alterations as could be 
made by omissions and changes at the    
part itself4  #h3b ,dr4 ,lightfoot makes
 use of my second edition4  #i3a        
,contemporary ,review1 ,december1 p4 #d1
 n4 #a2 ,essays on ,s4,r4 p4 #d1 n4 #d4 
#i3b ,professor ,hofstede de ,groot1 in 
advancing this passage after the example
 of ,tischendorf1 carefully             
distinguishes the words which he        
introduces1 referring it to the         
presbyters1 by placing them within      
brackets4  #aj3a ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #bca f4  
#aj3b ,contemporary ,review1 ,december1 
p4 #e f42 ,essays on ,s4,r4 p4 #g4      
#aj3c ,s4,r4 ii4 #bbh ff4  #aa3a ,wann  
wurden1 u4s4w41 p4 #gc f4  #aa3b ,the   
translation in ,scholten's work is      
substantially the same as               
,tischendorf's1 except that he has      
promises for has promised1 which is of  
no importance4 ,upon this1 however1     
,scholten argues that ,celsus is treated
 as a contemporary4  #ab3a ,s4,r4 ii4 p4

 #bbi ff4  #ac3a ,i may here briefly    
refer to one or two instances of        
translation attacked by ,dr4 ,lightfoot4
 ,he sneers at such a rendering as      
,greek3 ho logos edlou1 ,scripture      
declares1 introducing an isolated phrase
 from ,justin ,martyr 7ii4 #bif74 ,the  
slight liberty taken with the tense is  
surely excusable in such a case1 and for
 the rest ,i may point out that         
,prudentius ,maranus renders the words  
444 scripturam declarare1 and ,otto 444 
effatum declarare4 ,they occur in       
reference to passages from the ,old     
,testament quoted in controversy with a 
,jew4 ,the next passage is ,greek3 kata 
korrhs proplakizein1 which ,dr4         
,lightfoot says is rendered to inflict a
 blow on one side1 but this is not the  
case4 ,the phrase occurs in contrasting 
the words of ,matt4 v4 #ci1 ,greek3 all'
 hostis se rhapisei epi tn dexian sou   
siagona1 strepson aut kai tn alln1 with 
a passage in ,athenagoras1 ,greek3 alla 
tois men kan kata korrhs prosplakizosi1 

kai to eteron paiein parechein ts       
kephals meros4 ,in endeavouring to      
convey to the ,english reader some idea 
of the linguistic difference1 ,i        
rendered the latter 7ii4 #aic71 but to  
those who inflict a blow on the one     
side1 also to present the other side1 of
 the head1 c41 inserting the three      
,greek words after side1 to explain the 
suspension of sense1 and the merging1   
for the sake of brevity1 the double     
expression in the words ,i have         
italicised4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot represents  
the phrase as ending at side4 ,the      
passage from ,tertullian was quoted     
almost solely for the purpose of showing
 the uncertainty1 in so bold a writer1  
of the expression videtur1 for which    
reason1 although the ,latin is given    
below1 the word was introduced into the 
text4 ,it was impossible for anyone to  
mistake the tense and meaning of quem   
caederet1 but ,i ventured to paraphrase 
the words and their context1 instead of 
translating them4 ,in this sentence1 ,i 

may say1 the mutilation hypothesis is   
introduced1 and thereafter ,tertullian  
proceeds to press against ,marcion his  
charge of mutilating the ,gospel of     
,luke1 and ,i desired to contrast the   
doubt of the videtur with the assurance 
of the subsequent charge4 ,i had        
imagined that no one could have doubted 
that ,luke is represented as one of the 
,commentatores4  #ad3a ,i altered       
certainly to probably in the second     
edition1 as ,dr4 ,lightfoot points out1 
in order to avoid the possibility of    
exaggeration2 but my mind was so        
impressed with the certainty that ,i had
 clearly shown ,i was merely1 for the   
sake of fairness1 reporting the critical
 judgment of others1 that ,i did not    
perceive the absence of the words given 
above4  #ae3a ,dr4 ,lightfoot is        
mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of 
my having been misled by the nur of     
,credner2 but so scrupulous a critic    
might have mentioned that ,i not only   
refer to ,credner for this argument1 but

 also to ,de ,wette1 who has 444 dass er
 nie ,joh4 dem ,tafer wie der           
,synoptiker den ,beinamen ,greek3 ho    
,baptists giebt 7,einl4 ,n4,t4 p4 #bcj71
 and to ,bleek1 who says1 nicht ein     
einziges ,mal 7,beitrge1 p4 #agh1 and   
,einl4 ,n4,t4 p4 #aej71 which could not 
be misread4  #af3a ,contemporary        
,review1 ,december1 p4 #ae2 ,essays on  
,s4,r4 p4 #ba f4  #af3b ,clem4 ,alex4   
,strom4 vii4 #ag-ajf4 ,dr4 ,westcott    
gives the above reference1 but does not 
quote the passage4  #af3c ,dr4 ,westcott
 quotes the passage relative to         
,matthias4  #ag3a ,canon1 p4 #bee f4    
#ag3b ,the same remarks apply to the two
 passages1 pointed out by ,tischendorf1 
from ,clement of ,alexandria and        
,epiphanius4  #ah3a ,luthardt1 ,der     
,johann4 ,ursprung des viert4 ,evang4   
#ahgd1 p4 #he f4  #ai3a ,strom4 vii4    
#ag1  #ajf4  #ai3b ,canon1 p4 #bee4     
#ai3c ,contemporary ,review1 ,december1 
p4 #af ,essays1 p4 #bb4  #bj3a          
,contemporary ,review1 ,december1 p4 #h 

ibid4 p4 #aa4  #ba3a ,contemporary      
,review1 p4 #h ibid4 p4 #aa4  #ba3b ,a  
,crit4 ,history of ,chr4 ,lit4 and      
,doctrine1 i4 #ahd f4 ,i do not refer to
 the numerous authors who enforce this  
view4  #bb3a ,contemporary ,review1 p4  
#h ibid4 p4 #aa f4  #bc3a ,contemporary 
,review1 p4 #h f4 ibid4 p4 #aa4  #bc3b  
,s4,r4 i4 p4 #dda4  #bd3a ,contemporary 
,review1 p4 #h f4 ibid4 p4 #ab f4  #bd3b
 ,s4,r4 i4 p4 #chg ff4  #bd3c ,canon1 p4
 #aab f4  #bd3d ,contemporary ,review1  
p4 #i1 note ibid4 p4 #ab1 n4 #d4  #bd3e 
,s4,r4 i4 p4 #cfj1 note #a4 ,dr4        
,lightfoot1 of course1 can hardly       
suppose that ,i had read the passage to 
which ,i refer4  #be3a ,contemporary    
,review1 p4 #i ibid4 p4 #ac4  #bf3a     
,contemporary ,review1 p4 #i ibid4 p4   
#ac4  #bf3b ,i cannot go through every  
instance1 but ,i may briefly say that   
such a passage as ,ye are of your father
 the devil and the passage ,matt4 xi4   
#bg seq4 are no refutation whatever of  
my statement of the contrast between the

 fourth ,gospel and the ,synoptics2 and 
that the allusion to ,paul's teaching in
 the ,apocalypse is in no way excluded  
even by his death4 ,regarding the       
relations between ,paul and the pillar  
,apostles1 ,i hope to speak hereafter4  
,i must maintain that my argument       
regarding the identification of an      
eye-witness 7ii4 p4 #ddd ff47           
sufficiently meets the reasoning to     
which ,dr4 ,lightfoot refers4  #bg3a    
,contemporary ,review1 p4 #aa f4 ibid4  
p4 #af4  #bg3b ,ibid4 p4 #aj ibid4 p4   
#ad4  #bh3a ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #djb4  #bh3b  
,ibid4 ii4 p4 #djf4  #bh3c ,see ,acts   
iv4 #ac4  #bh3d ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #daj4     
#bh3e ,ibid4 ii1 p4 #dac4  #bi3a ,der   
,johann4 ,ursp4 des viert4 ,evang4      
#ahgd1 pp4 #bjd-g4  #bi3b ,einl4 ,n4,t4 
p4 #fbe4  #cj3a ,in regard to one other 
point1 ,i may say that1 so far from     
being silent about the presence of a    
form of the ,logos doctrine in the      
,apocalypse with which ,dr4 ,lightfoot  
reproaches me1 ,i repeatedly point out  

its existence1 as1 for instance1 ,s4,r4 
ii4 pp4 #bee1 #bgc1 #bgh1 c41 and ,i    
also show its presence elsewhere1 my    
argument being that the doctrine not    
only was not originated by the fourth   
,gospel1 but that it had already been   
applied to ,christianity in ,n4,t4      
writings before the composition of that 
work4  #cj3b ,s4,r4 ii4 #dba4  #cj3c    
,contemporary ,review1 #ab f4 ibid4 p4  
#ag f4  #ca3a ,dr4 ,lightfoot will find 
the passage to which ,i refer1 more     
especially p4 #bda1 line #d1 commencing 
with the words1 ,nur zwei neuere        
,ausleger ahnen die einfache ,wahrheit4 
#ca3b ,s4,r4 #dba f4  #cb3a ,works1 ed4 
,pitman1 x4 #cci f42 ,horae et ,talm4 p4
 #ich4  #cb3b ,chron4 ,synopse d4 vier4 
,evv4 p4 #bef1 ,anm4 #a4  #cb3c ,bibl4  
,comm41 ,das4 ,ev4 n4 ,joh41 umgearb4   
,ebrard ii4 #a1 p4 #abb f4  #cb3d       
,kurzgef4 ex4 ,handbuch ,n4,t4 i4 #c1 p4
 #hd4  #cb3e ,einl4 ,n4,t4 ii4 #aid f4  
,hug more strictly applies the name to  
the sepulchre where the bones of ,joseph

 were laid 7,josh4 xxiv4 #cb74  #cb3f   
,bibelwerk1 iv4 #bai4  #cb3g ,die       
,zeugnisse1 p4 #ba4  #cb3h ,comm4 sur   
l',ev4 de ,st4 ,jean1 i4 p4 #dge f4     
#cb3i ,einl4 ,n4,t4 p4 #baa4  #cb3aj    
,zeitschr4 gesammt4 ,luth4 ,theol4 u4   
,kirche1 #ahef1 p4 #bdj ff4  #cb3aa ,die
 ,joh4 ,schriften1 i4 p4 #aha1 ,anm4 #a2
 ,jahrb4 bibl4 ,wiss4 viii4 p4 #bee f42 
cf4 ,gesch4 v4 ,isr4 v4 p4 #cdh1 ,anm4  
#a4  #cb3ab ,das ,ev4 ,joh4 p4 #ajg4    
#cb3ac ,comm4 ,ev4 n4 ,joh4 p4 #ahh f4  
#cc3a ,comm4 ,ev4 des ,joh4 i4 p4 #egg  
f4  #cc3b ,jahrb4 bibl4 ,wiss4 viii4 p4 
#bee f4  #cc3c ,die ,joh4 ,schr4 i4 p4  
#aha1 ,anm4 #a4  #cc3d ,authorship and  
,hist4 ,char4 of ,fourth ,gospel1 #ahgb1
 p4 #ib4  #cc3e ,mr4 ,sanday adds in a  
note here3 ,this may perhaps be called  
the current explanation of the name4 ,it
 is accepted as well by those who deny  
the genuineness of the ,gospel as by    
those who maintain it4 ,cf4 ,keim1 i4   
#acc4 ,but there is much to be said for 
the identification with ,el ,askar1 c4  

,authorship and ,hist4 ,char4 of ,fourth
 ,gospel1 p4 #ic1 note #a4  #cd3a ,life 
of ,christ1 i4 p4 #bjf1 note #a4  #cd3b 
,la ,gographie du ,tulmud1 p4 #agj4     
#cd3c ,smith's ,dictionary of the       
,bible1 iii4 p4 #acie f4  #cf3a ,bampton
 ,lect4 #ahfe1 #bnd edit4 p4 #d4  #cf3b 
,s4,r4 i4 p4 #fa ff4  #cg3a             
,contemporary ,review1 p4 #ai ibid4 p4  
#bf f4  #cg3b ,three ,essays on         
,religion1 p4 #baf f4  #ch3a ,three     
,essays on ,religion1 p4 #bcd4  #ch3b   
,ibid4 p4 #bai4  #ci3a ,s4,r4 ii4 p4    
#dgg4  #dj3a ,this appeared as the      
,preface to the #fth edition4  #de3a    
,contemporary ,review1 ,january #ahge1  
p4 #a ff4 7,ibid4 p4 #cb ff47  #de3b    
,s4,r4 i4 p4 #bab4  #df3a ,contemporary 
,review1 ,january #ahge1 p4 #agb ibid4  
p4 #cf4  #df3b ,ibid4 p4 #ahc ibid4 p4  
#ea4  #dh3a ,contemporary ,review1      
,january #ahge1 p4 #agc ibid4 p4 #ch4   
#di3a ,i regret very much that some     
ambiguity in my language 7,s4,r4 i4 p4  
#dhc7 should have misled1 and given ,dr4

 ,lightfoot much trouble4 ,i used the   
word quotation in the sense of a use of 
the ,epistle of ,peter1 and not in      
reference to any one sentence in        
,polycarp4 ,i trust that in this edition
 ,i have made my meaning clear4  #ej3a  
,cf4 ,h4,e4 iii4 #c1 #d1 #ah1 #bd1 #be1 
c4 c4  #ej3b ,ibid4 ii4 #ae1 vi4 #ad4   
#ej3c ,ibid4 v4 #h4  #ej3d ,ibid4 vi4   
#be4  #ea3a ,contemporary ,review1      
,january #ahge1 p4 #aha ibid4 p4 #dh4   
#ea3b ,by a slip of the pen ,dr4        
,lightfoot refers to ,irenaeus1 ,adv4   
,haer4 iii4 #c1 #d4 ,it should be ii4   
#bb1 #e4  #ea3c ,ibid4 p4 #aha4  #ea3d  
,h4,e4 iii1 #bd4  #eb3a ,h4,e4 ii4 #bc4 
#eb3b ,ibid4 iii4 #aa4  #eb3c ,ibid4    
#af4  #eb3d ,ibid4 #ai1 #bj4  #eb3e     
,ibid4 #cb4  #eb3f ,ibid4 iv4 #h4  #eb3g
 ,ibid4 #aa4  #eb3h ,ibid4 iv4 #bb4     
#ec3a ,h4,e4 ii4 #ae4  #ec3b ,ibid4 vii4
 #be4  #ed3a ,h4,e4 iii4 #ah4  #ed3b    
,ibid4 #ai1 #bj4  #ed3c ,ibid4 #bj4     
#ed3d ,ibid4 #bj4  #ed3e ,ibid4 #bc4    
#ed3f ,ibid4 #bd4  #ee3a ,i am much     

obliged to ,dr4 ,lightfoot for calling  
my attention to the accidental insertion
 of the words and the ,apocalypse       
7,s4,r4 i4 p4 #dcc74 ,this was a mere   
slip of the pen1 of which no use is     
made1 and the error is effectually      
corrected by my own distinct statements4
  #ee3b ,h4,e4 iii4 #ci4  #ef3a         
,contemporary ,review1 ,january #ahge1  
p4 #ahc ibid4 p4 #ea4  #eg3a            
,contemporary ,review1 ,february #ahge1 
p4 #ccg ff4 ibid4 p4 #ei ff4  #eh3a     
,contemporary ,review1 ,february #ahge1 
p4 #cci ibid4 p4 #fb4  #ei3a            
,contemporary ,review1 ,february #ahge1 
p4 #cdj ibid4 p4 #fc4  #ei3b ,s4,r4 i4  
p4 #bfc f4 ,i have introduced numbers   
for facility of reference4  #fj3a ,dr4  
,lightfoot says in this volume3 ,the    
reading 'most' is explained in the      
preface to that edition as a misprint   
7p4 #fc1 n4 #b74 ,not so at all4 ,a slip
 of the pen is a very different thing4  
#fj3b ,contemporary ,review1 ,february  
#ahge1 p4 #cda ibid4 p4 #fd4  #fa3a     

,ueber d4 ,urspr4 u4s4w4 des            
,christennamens1 p4 #g1 ,anm4 #a4  #fa3b
 ,zeitschr4 wiss4 ,theol4 #ahgd1 p4     
#baa1 ,anm4 #a4 ,i should have added    
that the priority which ,lipsius still  
maintains is that of the text1 as ,dr4  
,lightfoot points out in his ,apostolic 
,fathers 7part ii4 vol4 i4 #ahhe1 p4    
#bgc1 n4 #a71 and not of absolute       
origin2 but this appears clearly enough 
in the quotations ,i have made4  #fa3c  
,contemporary ,review1 ,february #ahge1 
p4 #hda ibid4 p4 #fe4  #fb3a ,s4,r4 i4  
p4 #bei f4  #fb3b ,contemporary ,review1
 ,february #ahge1 p4 #cdb ibid4 p1 #fe  
f4  #fb3c ,s4,r4 i4 p4 #bei4  #fc3a     
,contemporary ,review1 ,february #ahge1 
p4 #cdb4 ,in a note ,dr4 ,lightfoot     
states that my references to ,lipsius   
are to his earlier works1 where he still
 maintains the priority and genuineness 
of the ,curetonian ,epistles4 ,certainly
 they are so3 but in the right place1   
two pages further on1 ,i refer to the   
writings in which he rejects the        

authenticity1 whilst still maintaining  
his previous view of the priority of    
these letters ibid4 p4 #ff4  #fd3a      
,calvin's expressions are3 ,nihil       
naeniis illis1 quae sub ,ignatii nomine 
editae sunt1 putidius4 ,quo minus       
tolerabilis est eorum impudentia1 qui   
talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt
 7,inst4 ,chr4 ,rel4 i4 #ac1  #ci74     
#fd3b ,contemporary ,review1 ,february  
#ahge1 p4 #cdb4  #fd3c ,op4 ,theolog4   
#afeb1 #aa1 p4 #ajhe4  #fd3d            
,contemporary ,review1 ,february #ahge1 
p4 #cdb ibid4 p4 #ff4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot   
refers to ,pearson's ,vindiciae ,ignat4 
p4 #bh 7ed4 ,churton74  #fe3a ,exam4    
,concilii ,tridentim1 #afad1 i4 p4 #he  
7misprinted #hi74  #fe3b ,contemporary  
,review1 ,february #ahge1 p4 #cdc ibid4 
p4 #fg4  #fg3a ,critici ,sacri1 lib4 ii 
cap4 #a2 ,op4 ,theolog4 #afeb1 ii4 p4   
#ajhf4  #fg3b ,vind4 ,ignat4 #afgb1 p4  
#ad f42 ,jacobson1 ,patr4 ,apost4 i4 p4 
xxxviii4  #fg3c ,op de ,theolog4        
,dogmat41 ,de ,eccles4 ,hierarch4 v4 #h 

#a1 edit4 ,venetiis1 #ageg1 vol4 vii4   
#fh3a ,contemporary ,review1 ,february  
#ahge1 p4 #cdc f4 ibid4 p4 #fg f4  #gj3a
 ,die ,kirche im ap4 ,zeit4 p4 #cbb4    
#gj3b ,contemporary ,review1 ,february  
#ahge1 p4 #cdd f4 ibid4 p4 #fi4  #gb3a  
,k4,g4 #ahdb1 #a4 p4 #cbg1 ,anm4 #a4    
#gc3a ,contemporary ,review1 ,february  
#ahge1 p4 #cde ibid4 p4 #fi4  #ge3a     
,einl4 ,n4,t4 pp4 #add f41 #bcc4  #gh3a 
,contemporary ,review1 ,january #ahge1  
p4 #ahc ibid4 p4 #ea4  #gh3b ,ibid41    
,february #ahge1 p4 #cdf ibid4 p4 #ga4  
#gi3a ,theolog4 ,quartalschrift1 #ahea1 
p4 #chi ff4  #gi3b ,hippolytus and his  
,age1 #aheb1 i4 p4 #fj1 note1 iv4 p4 vi 
ff4  #gi3c ,gesch4 d4 ,v4 ,isr4 vii4 p4 
#cba1 ,anm4 #a4  #hj3a ,patr4 ,apost4   
,proleg4 #ahfc1 p4 xxx4  #hj3b ,patr4   
,apost4 ed4 #dth1 #ahee4 ,in a review of
 ,denzinger's work in the ,theolog4     
,quartalschrift1 #ahdi1 p4 #fhc ff41    
,hefele devotes eight lines to the      
,armenian version 7p4 #fhe f47  #hj3c   
,hippolytus1 #aheb1 i4 p4 #fj1 note4    

,cf4 iv4 p4 vi ff4  #ha3a ,s4,r4 i4 p4  
#bfd4  #ha3b ,contemporary ,review1     
,february #ahge1 p4 #cdg ibid4 p4 #gb4  
#hb3a ,contemporary ,review1 ,february  
#ahge1 p4 #cdh ibid4 p4 #gd4  #hb3b     
,s4,r4 i4 p4 #bfe4  #hc3a ,contemporary 
,review1 ,february #ahge1 p4 #cdg ibid4 
p4 #gb f4 ,dr4 ,lightfoot makes the     
following important admission in a note3
 ,the ,roman ,epistle indeed has been   
separated from its companions1 and is   
embedded in the ,martyrology which      
stands at the end of this collection in 
the ,latin ,version1 where doubtless it 
stood also in the ,greek1 before the    
,,ms4 of this latter was mutilated4     
,otherwise the ,vossian ,epistles come  
together1 and are followed by the       
confessedly spurious ,epistles in the   
,greek and ,latin ,,mss4 ,in the        
,armenian all the ,vossian ,epistles are
 together1 and the confessedly spurious 
,epistles follow4 ,see ,zahn1 ,ignatius 
von ,antiochien1 p4 #aaa4  #hc3b ,note  
to ,horne's ,int4 to the ,holy          

,scriptures1 #abth ed4 #ahfi1 iv4 p4    
#ccb1 note #a4 ,the italics are in the  
original4  #hc3c ,the ,ancient ,syrian  
,version1 c4 #ahde1 p4 xxiv f4  #hd3a   
,corpus ,ignat4 p4 #cch4  #hd3b ,ibid4  
p4 ii4  #hd3c ,dressel1 ,patr4 ,ap4 p4  
lvi4  #hd3d ,cureton1 ,corp4 ,ign4 p4   
iii4  #hd3e ,dressel1 ,patr4 ,ap4 p4    
lvii f4  #hd3f ,cureton1 ,corp4 ,ignat4 
p4 vii f4  #hd3g ,ibid4 p4 xi2 ,dressel1
 ,patr4 ,ap4 p4 xxxi2 cf4 p4 lxii2      
,jacobson1 ,patr4 ,ap4 i4 p4 lxxiii2    
,vossius1 ,ep4 gen4 ,s4 ,ign4 ,mart41   
,amstel4 #afdf4  #hd3h ,dressel1 ,patr4 
,ap4 p4 lxi4  #hf3a ,a ,few ,words on   
',supernatural ,religion1' pref4 to     
,hist4 of the ,canon1 #dth ed4 #ahgd1 p4
 xix4  #hg3a ,a ,few ,words on ',s4,r41'
 preface to ,hist4 of ,canon1 #dth ed4  
p4 xix f4  #hg3b ,s4,r4 i4 p4 #bfh4     
#hh3a ,on the ,canon1 ,preface1 #dth ed4
 p4 xx4  #hi3a ,these consist only of an
 additional page of ,baur's work first  
quoted1 and a reference to another of   
his works quoted in the second note1 but

 accidentally left out of note #c4      
#ij3a ,i take the liberty of putting    
these words in italics to call attention
 to the assertion opposed to what ,i    
find in the note4  #ia3a ,it is the same
 work1 ,i believe1 subsequently         
published in an extended form4 ,the work
 ,i quote is entitled ,kirchengeschichte
 der ersten sechs ,jahrhunderte1 dritte1
 umgearbeitete ,auflage1 #ahfi1 and is  
part of a course of lectures carrying   
the history to the nineteenth century4  
#ib3a ,i do not know why ,dr4 ,westcott 
adds the 'ff' to my reference1 but ,i   
presume it is taken from note #d1 where 
the reference is given to 'p4 #eb ff4'  
,this shows how completely he has failed
 to see the different object of the two 
notes4  #ic3a ,on the ,canon1 ,pref4    
#dth ed4 p4 xxi f4  #ig3a ,p4 #bac4     
#ih3a ,on the ,canon1 ,preface1 #dth ed4
 p4 xxiv4 ,dr4 ,westcott adds1 in a     
note1 ,it may be worth while to add that
 in spite of the profuse display of     
learning in connection with ,ignatius1  

,i do not see even in the second edition
 any reference to the full and elaborate
 work of ,zahn4 ,i might reply to this  
that my ,,ms4 had left my hands before  
,zahn's work had reached ,england1 but1 
moreover1 the work contains nothing new 
to which reference was necessary4  #ii3a
 ,on the ,canon1 ,preface1 #dth ed4 p   
xxv4  #ajj3a ,ruinart1 ,acta ,mart4 p4  
#acg ff42 cf4 ,baronius1 ,mart4 ,rom4   
#afca1 p4 #aeb4  #ajj3b ,cf4 ,lardner1  
,credibility1 c41 ,works1 iii4 p4 #c4   
#aja3a ,contemporary ,review1 ,february 
#ahge1 p4 #cdi ibid4 p4 #ge4  #aja3b    
,ibid4 p4 #cej ibid4 p4 #gf4  #ajb3a    
,there are grave reasons for considering
 it altogether inauthentic4 ,cf4        
,cotterill1 ,peregrinus ,proteus1 #ahgi4
  #ajb3b ,de ,morte ,peregr4 #aa4       
#ajb3c ,ibid4 #ad4  #ajb3d ,gesch4 chr4 
,kirche1 i4 p4 #daj f4  #ajc3a ,see1 for
 instance1 ,denzinger1 ,ueber die       
,aechtheit d4 bish4 ,textes d4 ,ignat4  
,briefe1 #ahdi1 p4 #hg ff42 ,zahn1      
,ignatius v4 ,ant41 #ahgc1 p4 #eag ff4  

#ajc3b ,contemporary ,review1 ,february 
#ahge1 p4 #cej f4 ibid4 p4 #gg4  #ajd3a 
,s4,r4 i4 p4 #bfh1 note #d4  #aje3a     
,dean ,milman says3 ,trajan1 indeed1 is 
absolved1 at least by the almost general
 voice of antiquity1 from the crime of  
persecuting the ,christians4 ,in a note 
he adds3 ,excepting of ,ignatius1       
probably of ,simeon of ,jerusalem1 there
 is no authentic martyrdom in the reign 
of ,trajan4--,hist4 of ,christianity1   
#ahfg1 ii4 p4 #ajc4  #ajf3a ,k4,g4      
#ahdb1 i4 p4 #aga4  #ajf3b ,ibid4 i4 p4 
#agb1 ,anm4  #ajh3a ,hist4 of           
,christianity1 ii4 p4 #aja f4  #aji3a   
,p4 #bgf 7ed4 ,bonn74 ,contemporary     
,review1 ,february #ahge1 p4 #ceb ibid4 
p4 #gi4  #aji3b ,ibid4 p4 #cec f4 ibid4 
p4 #hj4  #aji3c ,ibid4 p4 #ceb ibid4 p4 
#gi f44  #aaj3a ,contemporary ,review1  
,february #ahge1 p4 #cec f4 ibid4 p4    
#ha4  #aaj3b ,ignatius v4 ,ant4 p4 #ff1 
,anm4 #c4  #aaa3a ,i need not refer to  
the statement of ,nicephorus that these 
relics were first brought from ,rome to 

,constantinople and afterwards          
translated to ,antioch4  #aab3a         
,ruinart1 ,acta ,mart4 pp4 #ei1 #fi4    
#aab3b ,ignatius v4 ,ant4 p1 #fh4       
#aab3c ,ruinart1 ,acta ,mart4 p4 #ef4   
,baronius makes the anniversary of the  
martyrdom #ast ,february1 and that of   
the translation #agth ,december4 7,mart4
 ,rom4 pp4 #hg1 #gff ff47  #aab3d       
,ignatius v4 ,ant4 p4 #bg1 p4 #fh1 ,anm4
 #b4  #aab3e ,there is no sufficient    
evidence for the statement that1 in     
,chrysostom's time1 the day dedicated to
 ,ignatius was in ,june4 ,the mere      
allusion1 in a ,homily delivered in     
honour of ,ignatius1 that recently the  
feast of ,st4 ,pelagia 7in the ,latin   
,calendar #ith ,june7 had been          
celebrated1 by no means justifies such a
 conclusion1 and there is nothing else  
to establish it4  #aad3a ,st4 ,paul's   
,ep4 to the ,philippians1 #crd ed4      
#ahgc1 p4 #bcb1 note4 ,cf4 ,contemporary
 ,review1 ,february #ahge1 p4 #ceh f4   
7,ibid4 p4 #hh7  #aaf3a ,complete ed4 i4

 p4 #bgg f4 ,all the references which ,i
 give in these essays must be understood
 as being to the complete edition4      
#aag3a i4 p4 #ddc ff4  #aag3b ,,pg      
,transcriber's note3 probably a misprint
 for lost work  #aah3a ,this rendering  
is quoted from ,dr4 ,lightfoot's        
,essays1 p4 #afc4  #aai3a ,essays1 p4   
#afg f4  #abj3a ,essays1 p4 #agj4       
#aba3a ,ibid4 p4 #afi4  #abb3a ,essays1 
p4 #agj4  #abb3b ,ibid4 p4 #agj4  #abb3c
 ,ibid4 p4 #agj4  #abc3a ,ibid4 p4 #aeb4
  #abd3a ,vol4 i4 p4 #dfc f4  #abd3b    
,ibid4 p4 #aga4  #abd3c ,ibid4 p4 #agb  
f4  #abd3d i4 p4 #dfc f4  #abe3a ,ibid4 
p4 #agc4  #abe3b i4 #bcf ff4  #abe3c    
,note4  #abe3d ,note4  #abf3a ,clem4    
,rom4  #ec1  #de2 ibid4 #agc f4  #acj3a 
,i4 p4 #baj f4  #acb3a ,i4 p4 #bac ff4  
,i have italicised a few phrases4       
#acc3a ,s4,r4 i4 #bei ff4 ,see further  
illustrations here4  #acd3a ,s4,r4 i4 p4
 #cfc f4  #ace3a ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #bba1 n4 
#g4  #ace3b ,ibid4 p4 #bbj4  #ace3c     
,ibid4 ii4 p4 #afi f4  #acf3a ,s4,r4 ii4

 p4 #bbf4  #acf3b ,in discussing the    
authenticity of fragments ascribed to   
,melito1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot quoted1 as an  
argument from ,supernatural ,religion   
the following words3 ,they have1 in     
fact1 no attestation whatever except    
that of the ,syriac translation1 which  
is unknown and which1 therefore1 is     
worthless4 ,the passage appeared thus in
 the ,contemporary ,review1 and now is  
again given in the same form in the     
present volume4 ,i presume that the     
passage which ,dr4 ,lightfoot intends to
 quote is3 ,they have no attestation    
whatever1 except that of the ,syriac    
translator1 who is unknown1 and which   
is1 therefore1 worthless 7,s4,r4 ii4 p4 
#aha74 ,if ,dr4 ,lightfoot1 who has so  
much assistance in preparing his works  
for the press1 can commit such mistakes1
 he ought to be a little more charitable
 to those who have none4  #acg3a ,s4,r4 
ii4 p4 #ahb ff4  #acg3b ,ibid4 p4 #bci4 
#acg3c ,ibid4 p4 #bdh4  #adj3a ,s4,r4   
ii4 p4 #aih ff41 iii4 #bd ff4  #adj3b   

,ibid4 #bee4  #ada3a ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #bjj4
  #adb3a ,s4,r4 ii4 p4 #bjj f4  #adc3a  
,s4,r4 iii4 p4 #beg  #adc3b ,ibid4 p4   
#be f4  #add3a ,ibid41 p4 #bei4  #ade3a 
,,ii4 pp4 #add ff41 #cgb ff4  #adf3a    
,euseb4 ,h4,e4 iv4 #bi4 7,ibid4 p4 #bbg 
f47  #adf3b ,i need not quote the       
references which ,dr4 ,lightfoot gives  
in a note4  #adf3c ,ibid4 p4 #bgh4      
#adg3a ,unters4 ,n4,t4 ,kanons1 #ahha1  
p4 #ae f4  #adg3b ,on the ,canon1 #ahge1
 p4 #cah1 n4 #c4 ,cf4 #ahha1 p4 #cbb1 n4
 #c4  #adg3c ,the ,diatessaron of       
,tatian1 #ahhh1 p4 xiv4  #adg3d ,ibid4  
p4 #bgi4  #adh3a ,dr4 ,lightfoot's      
rendering1 p1 #bhj4 ,assem4 ,bibl4      
,orient4 ii4 p4 #aei sq4  #adh3b ,ibid4 
p4 #bhj f4  #adi3a ,the ,diatessaron of 
,tatian1 p4 xxx4  #adi3b ,euseb4 ,op4   
iv4 p4 #abgf 7ed4 ,migne47 ,the         
translation is by ,dr4 ,lightfoot 7l4c4 
p4 #bha1 n4 #a74  #aej3a ,zahn1         
,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #ahha1 p4 #gj f4
  #aej3b ,hist4 ,chr4 ,lit4 and ,doctr4 
iii4 p4 #bf4  #aej3c ,moesinger1 ,evang4

 ,concor4 ,expositio1 #ahgf1 p4 x f4    
#aej3d ,ibid4 p4 xi4  #aeb3a ,zahn1 l4c4
 p4 #ch4  #aec3a ,ibid4 p4 #bhf4  #aec3b
 ,ibid4 p4 #bhh4 ,the italics are mine4 
#aec3c ,hemphill1 ,the ,diatessaron of  
,tatian1 p4 xxiv4  #aed3a ,i have       
already referred to this document       
further back1 p4 #acf4  #aef3a          
,lightfoot1 ,apostolic ,fathers1 part   
ii4 #ahhe1 p4 #eih ff4  #afh3a ,by      
recent returns the number of the        
professors of different religions is    
estimated as follows3     ,parsees      
#aej1jjj    ,sikhs                      
#a1bjj1jjj    ,jews                     
#g1jjj1jjj1 being about  per cent4      
of the whole4    ,greek ,catholics      
#ge1jjj1jjj             #f              
,roman ,catholics                       
#aeb1jjj1jjj            #ab             
,other ,christians                      
#ajj1jjj1jjj             #h             
,hindus                                 
#afj1jjj1jjj            #ac             
,muhammedans                            

#aee1jjj1jjj            #ab             
,buddhists                              
#ejj1jjj1jjj            #dj             
,not included in the above              
#ajj1jjj1jjj             #h             
-----------                             
#a1bej1cej1jjj  ,we have taken these    
statistics1 which are approximately     
correct1 from an excellent little work  
recently published by the ,society for  
the ,propagation of ,christian          
,knowledge--,buddhism1 by ,t4,w4 ,rhys  
,davids1 p4 #f4      ,,index4   ,acts of
 the ,apostles1 evidence for1 #adb f41  
#afd ,addai1 ,doctrine of1 #adg         
,ammonius1 ,diatessaron of1 #adh ,anger1
 #e ,antioch1 earthquake at1 in ,a4,d4  
#aae1 #ajg f4 ,aphthonius2 see ,elias of
 ,salamia ,apocalypse1 allusion to ,paul
 in1 #bf1 n4 #b2 language of1 #bg ff4   
,apollinaris1 ,claudius2 date1 #acg2    
evidence for ,gospels1 #acg ,aristion1  
#ee ,ascension1 evidence for1 #afe      
,aubertin1 #fe1 #ff ,aucher1 #ade       
,baronius1 #aab n4 #c ,bar-,salibi1     

,dionysius1 #adg f4 ,basnage1 #fe1 #ff  
,baumgarten-,crusius1 #gj1 #gb ,baur1   
does not allude to ,armenian version of 
,ignatian ,epistles1 #gi2      date of  
martyrdom of ,ignatius1 #hi f42 place of
 his martyrdom1 #ie ff42      on        
,peregrinus ,proteus1 #ajb ,beausobre1  
#gj1 #ga ,bleek1 #g1 #cb1 #fj1 #fb1 #fh1
 #gd1 #hj1 #ij1 #ic ,blondel1 #fe1 #ff  
,bochart1 #fe1 #ff ,bhringer1 #ei1 #fb1 
#fc1 #hj ,bunsen1 #cb1 #fb1 #fc1 #gi    
,calvin1 #fd ,campianus1 #fd ,casaubon1 
#fe1 #fg ,celsus1 ,origen on1 #aj ff41  
#adf ,centuriators1 ,magdeburg1 #fd     
,chemnitz1 #fb1 #fd1 #fe ,christianity1 
claim to be ,divine ,revelation1 not    
original1 #aff f42      history and     
achievements opposed to this claim1 #afg
 f42      census of religions1 #afh n4  
#a2 transformation of1 #afi f4          
,chrysostom1 #ajh1 #aaj1 #aaa f4        
,ciasca1 alleged ,arabic version of     
,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #ade1 #aej f4   
,clement of ,alexandria1 on ,basilides1 
#ah f4 ,cleophas1 #eb ,cook1 #fe1 #ff   

,criticism1 attitude towards1 #a        
,cureton1 #fb1 #fc1 #fe1 #fh ff41 #gi1  
#hc f4 ,curetonian version of ,ignatian 
,epistles1 #ei ff41 #fg ff41 #gd ff41   
#hj f4  ,dallaeus1 #fb ,davidson1 ,dr41 
on passage of ,irenaeus1 #f2 date of    
martyrdom of      ,ignatius1 #ia2 place 
of the martyrdom1 #if ,delitzsch1 #cj1  
#ca1 #cb ,denzinger1 #gh1 #gi1 #hj n4   
#b1 #ajc n4 #a ,diatessaron of          
,ammonius1 #adh ff41 #aeb ff4           
,diatessaron of ,elias of ,salamia1 #adh
 ff4 ,diatessaron of ,tatian1 #ade ff42 
alleged ,armenian version of ,ephraem's 
commentary on it1 #ade f42 ,latin       
translation by ,aucher and              
,moesinger1 #ade f42 ,arabic version of1
 translated by ,ciasca1 #ade f42        
,eusebius on it1 #adf f42 did ,eusebius 
directly know it8 #adf f42              
,bar-,salibi on it1 #adg f42 ,theodoret 
suppresses it1 #adi f42 the             
genealogies of ,jesus said to be        
excised1 #adi f42 not all suppressed    
in ,armenian and ,arabic works1 #aej2   

called ',gospel according to the        
,hebrews1' #aej2 ,epiphanius had not    
seen it1 #aej2 we could not identify    
it1 #aej2 ,arabic version of ,ciasca1   
#aej f42 said to be translated      from
 ,syriac1 #aea2 its date1 #aea2 ascribed
 in notes to ,tatian1 #aea2             
original language of ,tatian's          
,diatessaron1 #aea f42 ,gospel texts    
in alleged versions affected by repeated
 translation1 #aea f42 name of          
,tatian not on original work1 #aeb2     
could it be identified8 #aeb ff42       
case of ,victor of ,capua1 #aeb ff42 was
 he mistaken8 #aec f42 ,dr4 ,wace       
says3 ,no1 #aec2 value of evidence if   
alleged versions be genuine1 #aed       
,dionysius of ,corinth1 #ef ,doctrine of
 ,addai1 #adg ,donaldson1 ,dr41 on      
,epistle of ,polycarp1 #ba2 on ,tatian's
 ,diatessaron1 #aej ,dorner1 #d         
,dressel1 #gi  ,ebrard1 #g ,elias of    
,salamia1 his ,diatessaron1 #adg f42 he 
finds fault with ,canons      of        
,eusebius1 #adh ,ephraem ,syrus1 his    

,commentary on ,tatian's ,diatessaron1  
#adg f42      date1 #adh2 alleged       
,armenian version of his ,commentary1   
#ade2 date      of the ,,ms41 #aej2     
translated from ,syriac1 #aej2 evidence1
 #aej f42      ,tatian's name not       
mentioned1 #aej2 value as evidence if   
genuine1 #aed ,epiphanius1 #aej         
,eusebius1 on ,papias1 #g2 silence of1  
#de f42 my only inference from silence  
of1 #ej f42 procedure of1 #ej f42 his   
references to ,hegesippus1 #eb ff42     
his references to ,john1 #ec ff42 on    
,claudius ,apollinaris1 #acg2      on   
,polycrates of ,ephesus1 #acg2 on       
,tatian's ,diatessaron1 #adf f42      on
 ,diatessaron of ,ammonius1 #adh f42 his
 ,epistle to ,carpianus1      #adh f41  
#aeb ,ewald1 #cb1 #cc1 #fb1 #fc1 #gi1   
#ada  ,farrar1 ,dr41 #cd ,francke1 #ig  
,gfrrer1 #g1 #ge ,glaucias1 #ae1 #ah1   
#ai1 ,gobarus1 ,stephanus1 #bc ,godet1  
#cb ,gospel1 the ,fourth1 contrast with 
,synoptics1 #bf f41 #bf n4 #b2          
,hebraic character of its language1 #bg 

ff42      ,eusebius regarding it1 #di1  
#ea1 #ec f41 #ee ff42      evidence to  
it of ,martyrdom of ,polycarp1 #ace2    
alleged evidence of ,claudius           
,apollinaris1 #acg2      alleged        
evidence of ,polycrates #acg2           
supposed reference to it in ,epistle of 
,vienne and ,lyons1 #add2      ,tatian's
 ,diatessaron said to begin with it1    
#adg f42      insufficiency of evidence 
for it1 #afb ff42      its contents     
cannot be reconciled with ,synoptics1   
#afc f4 ,gospels1 ,justin's use of1 #bd 
f42 evidence of alleged quotations1 #bd 
f42      object in examining evidence   
for1 #cg ff41 #da ff42 numerous ,gospels
      circulating in early ,church1 #aca
 f42 anonymous quotations not           
necessarily from canonical1 #aca ff42   
illustrations of this1 #acb ff42        
evidence of ,martyrdom of ,polycarp1    
#ace2 evidence of ,melito of            
,sardis1 #ace f42 evidence of ,claudius 
,apollinaris1 #acg2 evidence of         
,epistle of ,vienne and ,lyons1 #ada    

ff42 principles on which evidence       
is examined1 #afb2 insufficiency of     
evidence for1 #afb ff4 ,greet1 ,hofstede
 de1 #e1 #i n4 #b ,grove1 #cd ,guericke1
 #g1 #ij f41 #ic  ,hadrian1 #ab         
,hagenbach1 #ia1 #ic ,harless1 #ge      
,hase1 #gf ,hebrews1 ,gospel according  
to the1 #abb f41 #abc1 #aej ,hefele1 #hj
 ,hegesippus1 his attitude to ,paul1    
#bc2 references to him by ,eusebius1    
#eb ff42 on ,simeon1 #eb ,hemphill1     
,professor1 did ,eusebius directly know 
,tatian's ,diatessaron8      #adf f42 on
 ,arabic ,diatessaron1 #adi2 it takes   
,matthew as basis1 #adi2      its       
substantial identity with ,victor's     
,diatessaron1 #aec ,hengstenberg1 #ca   
,hilgenfeld1 on passage of ,irenaeus1 #e
 f42 on ,ignatian ,epistles1 #gh1 #gi2  
place and date of martyrdom of          
,ignatius1 #ig ff42 on ,papias and      
,matthew's ,hebrew ,oracles1 #abb2      
,protevangelium ,jacobi1 #adb2          
,eusebius on ,tatian's ,diatessaron1    
#adf f4 ,hippolytus1 #ag f4 ,holtzmann1 

#ace1 #adg ,hug1 #cb ,humfrey1 #ff      
,ignatius1 ,epistle of ,polycarp        
regarding him1 #bj ff42 date and place  
of      his martyrdom1 #hg1 #id ff42 his
 alleged martyr-journey1 #id ff42       
his treatment during it1 #ii f42        
compared with ,paul's journey1 #ajj f42 
compared with case of ,peregrinus1 #aja 
ff42 reasons opposed to                 
martyr-journey to ,rome1 and for        
martyrdom in ,antioch1 #ajd ff42        
remains of ,ignatius1 #aaa ff42         
martyrologies1 #aab f4 ,ignatian        
,epistles1 ,dr4 ,lightfoot on1 #eg ff42 
critics on priority of      ,syriac     
version1 #ei ff41 long recension1 #fd   
ff42 ,vossian ,epistles1      #fg ff42  
version of ,ussher1 #fg2 ,armenian      
version1 #gh ff42 ,eusebian             
,epistles1 #hj ff42 their order in      
,,mss41 #hb ff42 their value as         
evidence1 #aac f4 ,irenaeus1 #c ff4     
,jacobson1 #fe ,jerome1 #aaj f4 ,john1  
references of ,eusebius1 #ec ff42       
,papias and ,presbyters on1 #ee f42     

double use of name1 #ee f4 ,justin      
,martyr1 his quotations1 #bh ff4  ,keim1
 #ace ,kestner1 #gj1 #ga ,kirchhofer1 #g
  ,lange1 #cb ,lardner1 #gj1 #acf       
,lechler1 #gf f4 ,lightfoot1 #cb1 #cc   
,lightfoot1 ,dr41 objectionable style of
 criticism1 #a f41 #c1 #g f41      #ac  
n4 #a1 #ad f41 #ae n4 #a1 #bj1 #ba1 #bc 
f41 #bd n4 #e1 #be f41 #bg1 #cj f41     
#cf1 #dd f41 #df f41 #eg ff41 #fh ff42  
#gc ff41 #add2 on a passage of          
,irenaeus1 #c ff42 discussion of date of
 ,celsus1 #i ff42 ,dr4 ,westcott      on
 ,basilides1 #ae ff42 weightier         
arguments of apologists1 #bj ff42       
on ,epistle of ,polycarp1 #bj f41 object
 of ,papias' work1 #bb2 on              
,hegesippus and ,apostle ,paul1 #bb f42 
on ,justin ,martyr's quotations1        
#bc ff42 on duration of ministry of     
,jesus1 #bf f42 on ,hebraic character   
of language of the ,fourth ,gospel1 #bg 
ff42 identification of ,sychar1      #cj
 ff42 on argument of ,s4,r41 #cf ff42 on
 silence of ,eusebius1 #de ff42      the

 intention of ,eusebius1 #dd f42        
procedure of ,eusebius1 #ej f42         
silence of ,eusebius as evidence for    
,fourth ,gospel1 #ef f42 on             
,ignatian ,epistles1 #eg ff42 on view of
 ,lipsius1 #fj f42 misstatements        
regarding references in ,s4,r41 #fa ff42
 differentiation of ,ignatian           
,epistles1 #hj ff42 their position in   
,,mss41 #hb ff42 on martyr-journey      
and treatment of ,ignatius1 #ii f42     
compared with ,apostle ,paul's1         
#ajj f42 compared with case of          
,peregrinus ,proteus1 #aja ff42 on      
,john ,malalas1 #ajh ff42 on ,polycarp  
of ,smyrna1 #aae f42 date of his        
,epistle1 #aae2 does not examine alleged
 quotations of ,gospels1 #aaf2      on  
,papias of ,hierapolis1 #aag ff42       
,papias on ,mark1 #aag f42 ,papias on   
,matthew1 #aai ff42 on accuracy of      
,papias1 #abj ff42 translation of       
,hebrew ,oracles of ,matthew1 #aba f42  
on ,gospel according to the             
,hebrews1 #abb f42 on nature of ,oracles

 of ,matthew1 #abd ff42 can             
,oracles include narrative8 #abe f42 his
 misapprehension of argument      of    
,s4,r41 #abi ff42 on ,martyrdom of      
,polycarp1 #ace2 on ,melito of          
,sardis1 #ace f42 erroneous quotation   
from ,s4,r41 #acf1 n4 #b2 on            
,claudius ,apollinaris1 #acg f42 on     
,polycrates of ,ephesus1 #acg2 on       
,epistle of ,vienne and ,lyons1 #aci    
ff42 on the testimony of ,zacharias1    
#adj ff42 alleged reference to ,acts1   
#adb f42 alleged reference      to      
,fourth ,gospel1 #add2 ,tatian's        
,diatessaron1 #ade f42 on ,eusebius's   
mention of it1 #adf f42 did he directly 
know it8 #adf2 on ,doctrine      of     
,addai1 #adg2 it mentions ,tatian's     
,diatessaron1 #adg2 ,dionysius          
,bar-,salibi on ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 
#adg f42 on ,diatessaron of             
,ammonius1 #adh2 quite different from   
,tatian's work1 #adh f42      similarity
 to ,arabic version asserted by         
,hemphill1 #adi2 case of      ,victor of

 ,capua1 #aeb f42 ,victor must have been
 mistaken1 #aec f42      ,victor not    
mistaken after all1 #aec2 on ,letter of 
the ,smyrnaens1      #aed ff42 a short  
way with its miraculous elements1 #aed  
f42      practically justifies procedure
 of ,supernatural ,religion1 #aef       
,lipsius1 on ,ignatian ,epistles1 #fj   
f41 #fc1 #gh1 #gi2 on ,martyrdom of     
,polycarp1 #ace ,logia1 meaning of1 in  
,n4,t41 #abd ff4 ,logos doctrine in     
,apocalypse1 #cj n4 #a ,lucian1 #ab1    
#aja f4 ,luke1 ,gospel according to1    
supposed reference to it in ,epistle of 
,vienne      and ,lyons1 #ada f42 its   
use in ,diatessaron1 #adi1 #aec         
,luthardt1 on passage of ,irenaeus1 #f2 
on ,basilides1 #ah2 on language of      
,fourth ,gospel and ,apocalypse1 #bh ff4
  ,magdeburg ,centuriators1 #fd         
,malalas1 ,john1 on martyrdom of        
,ignatius1 #ajh ff4 ,marcus ,aurelius1  
#aje f4 ,mark1 ,presbyters and ,papias  
on1 #aag f42 not eye-witness but        
interpreter      of ,peter1 #aah f42    

value of his ,gospel as evidence1 #aah  
f42 use in      ,diatessaron1 #adi      
,matthew1 ,presbyters and ,papias on1   
#ee f41 #aai ff42 wrote oracles in      
,hebrew1 #aai ff42 when translated1 #aba
 ff42 use in ,diatessaron      of       
,ammonius1 #adh2 also in that of        
,tatian1 #adi f4 ,matthias1 #af1 #ah    
,mayerhoff1 #ia1 #ic ,melito of ,sardis1
 #ace f4 ,merx1 #gh1 #gi ,meyer1 on     
passage of ,irenaeus1 #e1 #hb ,mill1 on 
miracles1 #cf ff4 ,milman1 #ei1 #fb1    
#fc1 #aje n4 #a1 #ajg f4 ,moesinger1    
,ephraem's ,commentary1 #ade f41 #aej   
,mozley1 on belief1 #ce f4  ,neander1   
#gj1 #ga f41 #aje f4 ,neubauer1 #cj1 #cd
 ,nicephorus1 #aaa n4 #a  ,olshausen1   
#g1 #cb ,oracles1 meaning of1 #abd ff4  
,origen1 on ,celsus1 #aj f4  ,papias of 
,hierapolis1 alleged quotations from    
him1 #c ff42 object of      his work1   
#bb2 references of ,eusebius to him1 #ed
 ff42 words of      the ,presbyters1 #ee
 f42 double reference to ,john1 #ee f42 
he had      nothing to tell of ,fourth  

,gospel1 #ee ff42 on ,mark's ,gospel1   
#aag ff42      on ,matthew's ,hebrew    
,oracles1 #aai f42 value of his evidence
 for the      ,gospels1 #abg f4 ,parker1
 #fe1 #ff ,paul1 ,apostle1 his treatment
 as prisoner compared to that of        
,ignatius1      #ajj f42 unconscious    
testimony regarding the supernatural1   
#afe2      his testimony for            
,resurrection and ,ascension1 #afe f4   
,pearson1 #fg ,peregrinus ,proteus1 #ajb
 ff4 ,perpetua1 ,saturus and1 #ajj      
,petau1 #fe1 #fg ,petermann1 #gh ff4    
,phillips1 #adg ,polycarp of ,smyrna1   
#aae f42 date of martyrdom1 #aae        
,polycarp1 ,martyrdom of1 #ace1 #aed    
ff42 ,dr4 ,lightfoot's short way with   
the miraculous elements1 #aed f4        
,polycrates of ,ephesus1 date1 #acg2    
evidence for ,fourth ,gospel1 #acg      
,pressens1 de1 #fj ,protevangelium      
,jacobi1 #adb ,quadratus1 ,statius1 date
 of proconsulship1 #aae  ,religion1     
,supernatural1 argument of1 #cf ff41 #dj
 ff41 #abi ff42 canons      of          

criticism1 #acj ff42 the testimony of   
,zacharias1 ,epistle of      ,vienne and
 ,lyons1 #adj ff42 was ,eusebius        
directly acquainted with      ,tatian's 
,diatessaron8 #adf f42 argument of      
,s4,r4 practically      justified by    
,dr4 ,lightfoot1 #aed ff42 conclusions  
of1 #aeg ff42      evidence of ,divine  
,revelation which is necessary1 #aeg2   
miracles      as evidence destroyed by  
doubtful source1 #aeg f42 miraculous    
evidence      not original1 #aeh f41    
stream of miraculous pretension1 #aeh2  
true      character of miracles         
betrayed1 #aeh f42 origin of belief in  
supernatural interference1 #aei2        
assumptions to justify miracles1        
#aei f42 an ,infinite ,personal ,god1   
#aei f42 ,divine design of              
,revelation1 #afj2 miracles antecedently
 incredible1 #afj f42      evidence for 
the ,christian miracles1 #afa f42       
principles upon which      evidence     
examined1 #afb2 evidence for ,gospels1  
#afb f42 evidence for      ,acts1 #afd2 

the remaining books of ,new ,testament1 
#afd f42 evidence      of ,paul1 #afe2  
evidence for ,resurrection and          
,ascension1 #afe f42      results tested
 by general considerations1 #aff ff42   
claim of      ,christianity to be       
,divinely revealed not original1 #aff   
f42      history and achievements of    
,christianity opposed to it1 #afg f42   
census of religions1 #afh n4 #a2 how far
 the ,great ,teacher was                
misunderstood1 #afh f42 transformation  
of ,christianity1 #afi f42      alleged 
objections to disturbing belief1 #afi   
f42 objections not      valid1 #agj f42 
argument that ,divine ,revelation is    
necessary to      man1 #agb f42 we gain 
more than we lose by finding our        
theology      to be mere human          
inventions1 #agc f4 ,resurrection1      
evidence for1 #afe f4 ,reuss1 #adg      
,riggenbach1 on passage of ,irenaeus1   
#e2 on ,sychar1 #cb ,ritschl1 #fb1 #fc  
,rivet1 #fd1 #fe1 #fg ,routh1 on passage
 of ,irenaeus1 #d ,ruinart1 anniversary 

of ,ignatius1 #aab ,rumpf1 #fj  ,sanday1
 #cc ,saumaise1 #fe1 #ff ,schleimann1   
#ge f4 ,scholten1 #aa n4 #b1 #hj1 #ia   
f41 #if f41 #adg ,schroeckh1 #gj1 #ga   
,schrer1 #ace ,shechem1 #cj ff4 ,simeon1
 #eb1 #aje f4 ,smyrnaens1 ,letter of1   
#aed ff42 ,dr4 ,lightfoot as a sceptical
 critic1 #aed f4 ,socinus1 #fe ,stephen1
 #adb f4 ,sychar1 #cj ff4 ,synoptics1   
contrasted with ,fourth ,gospel1 #bf f4 
,tatian's ,diatessaron3 see ,diatessaron
 ,theodoret1 the ,ignatian ,epistles1   
#ha ,thiersch1 #g1 #gj ,tholuck1 #g     
,tischendorf1 on passage of ,irenaeus1  
#c ff42 passage of ,celsus1 #aa ff42    
does not notice ,armenian version of    
,ignatian ,epistles1 #hj2      testimony
 of ,zacharias1 in ,epistle of ,vienne  
and ,lyons1 #adb2      it is a reference
 to the ,protevangelium ,jacobi1 #adb   
,trajan1 in connection with the         
martyrdom of ,ignatius1 #hi ff41 #aje   
ff4 ,tregelles1 #fj1 #hb f4  ,uhlhorn1  
#gh1 #gi ,ussher1 #fg  ,vienne and      
,lyons1 ,epistle of1 #aci ff42 date1    

#aci2 the testimony of      ,zacharias1 
#adj f42 alleged quotations of ,acts1   
#adb ff42 value of      evidence1 #adc2 
,dr4 ,lightfoot on fragrance of the     
martyrs1 #aee ,volkmar1 on ,celsus1 #aj 
ff42 on ,ignatian ,epistles1 #fj2 does  
not notice      ,armenian version1 #hj2 
date of martyrdom of ,ignatius1 #ib f42 
place      of martyrdom1 #id ff4        
,vossian ,epistles of ,ignatius1 #fg f4 
,wace1 ,dr41 #aec ,waddington1 #aae     
,weiss1 #fb1 #fc1 #gh1 #gi ,weissmann1  
#fi f4 ,westcott1 ,dr41 criticisms on1  
#c f42 on ,papias1 #d2 on ,basilides1   
#ae ff42      on ,justin ,martyr's      
quotations1 #bc ff42 on ,supernatural   
,religion1      #dd f42 misstatements   
regarding notes1 #he ff42 was ,eusebius 
directly      acquainted with ,tatian's 
,diatessaron8 #adg ,wette1 de1 #g1 #ae  
n4 #a1 #cb ,wieseler1 #ca1 #cb ,wotton1 
#fh1 #fi  ,zacharias1 the testimony of1 
,epistle of ,vienne and ,lyons1 #adj ff4
 ,zahn1 on passage of ,irenaeus1 #f2 on 
,ignatian ,epistles1 #gh1 #gi1 #ii n4   

#a1      #aja2 on ,john ,malalas1 #aaj1 
date of martyrdom of ,ignatius1 #aab2   
did ,eusebius directly know ,tatian's   
,diatessaron8 #adg2 passages            
regarding descent of ,jesus from ,david 
not all excised from alleged            
,armenian version1 #aej ,zeller1 on     
passage of ,irenaeus1 #e